Posted by Jonathan Adler:
Did White House Censor Surgeons General?
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_07_08-2007_07_14.shtml#1184158745
Yesterday the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held
a [1]hearing on "The Surgeon General's Vital Mission: Challenges for
the Future." According to Committee Chair [2]Henry Waxman (D-CA):
Political interference is compromising the independence of the
Office of the Surgeon General. On key public health issues, the
Surgeon General has been muzzled. The Surgeon General�s greatest
resource � his or her ability to speak honestly and credibly to the
nation about public health � is in grave jeopardy. . . . as we will
hear this morning, political interference with the work of the
Surgeon General appears to have reached a new level in this
Administration. We will hear how reports were blocked, speeches
were censored, and travel restricted.
Among those who appeared at the hearing was former Bush Administration
Surgeon General Richard Carmona, who [3]testified:
the nation�s doctor has been marginalized and relegated to a
position with no independent budget, and with supervisors who are
political appointees with partisan agendas. Anything that doesn�t
fit into the political appointees� ideological, theological, or
political agenda is ignored, marginalized, or simply buried. . . .
Historically, the Surgeons General have occupied increasingly
embattled positions where each has had to fight to scientifically
address the contemporary health issues of the nation and the world
within an increasingly partisan, ideologically, and / or
theologically driven political agenda that is often devoid of open
discussions of scientific evidence or data.
Carmona's [4]written statement does not provide details of alleged
political interference during his term as Surgeon General. This
[5]Washington Post story, however, does:
In one such case, Carmona . . . said he was told not to speak out
during the national debate over whether the federal government
should fund embryonic stem cell research, which President Bush
opposes.
"Much of the discussion was being driven by theology, ideology,
[and] preconceived beliefs that were scientifically incorrect,"
said Carmona, one of three former surgeons general who testified at
yesterday's hearing. "I thought, 'This is a perfect example of the
surgeon general being able to step forward, educate the American
public.' . . . I was blocked at every turn. I was told the decision
had already been made -- 'Stand down. Don't talk about it.' That
information was removed from my speeches."
The problem with this example is that the debate over whether the
federal government should fund embryonic stem cell research is not a
scientific debate, but a moral one. Opposition to such research is
almost always based upon a belief that the use of embryos for such
research is immoral -- not that it is ineffective or that it cannot
lead to medical advances. Some opponents of stem cell research spin
scientific evidence to support their cause, exaggerating the potential
of adult stem cells, but proponents of embyonic stem cell research
engage in spin and hyperbole of their own. In the end, the decision
whether or not to support funding of embryonic stem cell research is a
normative policy decision, and it is not "political interference" with
science for an administration to expect political appointees to
support the administration's policy on this issue -- whatever that
policy is.
The Post also provides a second example:
Carmona said that when the administration touted funding for
abstinence-only education, he was prevented from discussing
research on the effectiveness of teaching about condoms as well as
abstinence. "There was already a policy in place that did not want
to hear the science but wanted to just preach abstinence, which I
felt was scientifically incorrect," Carmona said.
This example is harder to evaluate because it is less clear what
actually occurred. If, for instance, the federal government was
presenting false or misleading information about the effectiveness of
abstinence-only education, and preventing Carmona's office from
presenting accurate information, then this would be a good example of
political manipulation of science. If, on the other hand, Carmona was
prevented from expressing a purely policy disagreement with the
administration, then it would not be such a good example. From what I
know of the Bush Administration's policies and activities in this
area, I suspect the former is closer to what occurred, but the news
account does not provide enough detail to be sure.
The point here is that it is important to distinguish between
scientific conclusions and normative policy judgments, and to
recognize that the former may inform, but rarely determine, the
latter. In many instances when scientists charge political
interference, their real complaint is that those with policy-making
authority do not support the scientists' preferred policies, and many
claims of "censorship" are nothing more than the efforts of one
administration or another to ensure that federal agencies support
administration policy. There are plenty of examples of real science
politicization in the current and prior administrations, and these are
the incidents that merit our attention.
There is no doubt that the Bush Administration has sought to
politicize science in some areas. In this it is not alone, however. As
the Post further reported:
[Former Surgeon General David] Satcher, Carmona's predecessor, who
served from 1998 to 2002, said that under President Bill Clinton he
could not release a report on sexuality and public health, in part
because of sensitivities triggered by the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
As I have argued before (in [6]this series of posts), science
politicization is not the province of either party. There is plenty of
blame to go around, and a need for greater attention to the
institutional arrangements that place undue political pressure on
science in the first place.
References
1. http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1398
2. http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1399
3. http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070710111054.pdf
4. http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070710111054.pdf
5.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071001422.html
6. http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1169226983.shtml
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
