Response to NAS request for comment on S&T appointments (draft – KG 6 21 04 )

Kurt Gottfried Gottfried

Informations

• Publié par: Suwyig
• Nombre de lectures: 22
• Langue: English

Extrait

Statement of Alden Meyer, UCS Director of Strategy and Policy Before the NAS Committee on Ensuring the Best Science and Technology Presidential and Federal Advisory Committee Appointments July 21, 2004 Context: Abuses of Scientific Integrity in Policymaking Scientific knowledge is brought to bear on federal policy making in several ways: •Through technical studies, data collection and analysis by government scientists; •Through advice to departments and agencies by scientific advisory committees; and •Through direct advice to the President by the White House Science Adviser and by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. An unwritten social contract is implied by the very existence of this elaborate machinery in a democratic government. It can be stated as follows: political decisions are made by the peoples’ elected representatives, and entail many factors other than science; but in making such decisions, political leaders are obliged to consider the best advice that science can offer. Furthermore, the government is obliged to disseminate the uncensored results of its scientific studies unless there is a reasonable national security concern. On the whole, administrations of both parties have, until now, honored this contract. But as you are no doubt aware, concern about suppression or distortion of federal agency scientific analyses, and the politicization of appointments to federal scientific advisory panels by the current administration has been mounting in the scientific community. These abuses, all first reported by the news media, are not isolated examples; they affect many federal agencies and issues from climate change and air pollution to forests and endangered species, from reproductive and workplace health to nuclear weapons policy. Some 4,500 scientists have signed onto the statement originally released by UCS in February entitled “Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking,” including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 129 members of the National Academy of Sciences. The statement charges that “when scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its policies.” UCS has issued two detailed reports – one in February and one earlier this month – describing a large number of cases involving many departments and agencies that establish the validity of this allegation.

Most recently, theLos Angeles Timeshas reported that the Bush administration has ordered that government scientists in the Department of Health and Human Services, such as at NIH and CDC, must be approved by a political HHS appointee before they can participate in meetings convened by the World Health Organization and other multilateral organizations (article attached). Dr. D.A. Henderson, the man who led the worldwide campaign that eradicated small pox, and who worked at WHO for 11 years, told theTimes: "I do not feel this is an appropriate or constructive thing to do. In the scientific world, we have a generally open process. We deal with science as science. I am unaware of such clearance ever having been required before." During his years at WHO, theTimesreports, Henderson “said he could not recall having to go through government bureaucrats to invite scientists to participate in expert panels, except in the case of small Eastern European countries.” Dr. Henderson is immune to the nowstandard White House charge that he is just another politically biased scientist. He is currently an official advisor to Tommy Thompson, the HHS Secretary; before that he was appointed by President Bush to run the Office of Public Health Preparedness. In 2002, Henderson received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and was praised by President Bush as "a great general in mankind's war against disease." In his letter to WHO assistant directorgeneral Denis Aitken, Secretary Thompson’s special assistant for international affairs William Steiger wrote: “Except under very special circumstances US government experts do not and cannot participate in WHO consultations in their individual capacity.” Civil service and other regulations “require HHS experts to serve as representatives of the US government at all times and to advocate US government policies,” he said. It would be interesting to know if those small Warsaw Pact countries that gave Dr. Henderson such problems had similar rationales for their restrictive policies. This is just the latest example of unprecedented political intrusion into science under Secretary Thompson. UCS has documented numerous instances where scientists nominated to advisory committee positions have been asked about their political views  even whether they had voted for President Bush. In a radio interview, HHS spokesman William Pierce explained that “when they are in power they appoint Democratic scientists and when we are we appoint Republican scientists.” Dr. Gerald T. Keusch, who served as Associate Director for International Research and Director of the Fogarty International Center at NIH during the last three years of the Clinton administration and the first three years of the current administration, recently told the press how Secretary Thompson’s office rejected 19 of 26 highly qualified scientists Dr. Keusch had recommended for the Fogarty Center’s advisory council, a body that does not make policy recommendations or decisions. “Because all these individuals were highly distinguished, NIH was quick to approve them,” he said. “Nonetheless, all but seven—including a Nobel laureate—were rejected by the administration. I was told the Nobel laureate had signed too many full page letters inThe New York Timescritical of

2

President Bush.” Comparing his experiences trying to appoint advisory board members during the Clinton and Bush administrations, Dr. Keusch said "It couldn't be more clear: night and day prior to the election of 2000 and after." HHS spokesman Pierce responded to Dr. Keusch’s charges by saying the Secretary’s office takes input from various sources. "You have to think of this like a job application process: Names come in to us from all sources, including Dr. Keusch, but we get them from Congress, professional associations, people give us their own names," Pierce told theBoston Globe. During the same press briefing, Dr. Keusch reported that visits by NIH scientists based in Bethesda to UNrelated international agencies in Washington or New York, such the Pan American Health Organization, the World Bank or UNICEF, are to be treated in the same manner as foreign travel even if they are "just a Metro trip away" in downtown Washington, D.C. "You are now required to submit a travel request six weeks ahead of time," said Dr. Keusch. "These are increasing bits of evidence of attempts at control over the way the business of science, the open communication between scientists, is being conducted." What’s at issue in this and other documented abuses is not the administration’s policies, but the integrity of scientific and technical input into the policymaking process. Other factors such as economic impact and political considerations are and should be weighed in making policy decisions. But the scientific inputs should be objective and impartial, not distorted, censored or suppressed. Members of scientific advisory panels should be chosen for their expertise, not for their political views or positions on particular policies. I also want to also make it clear that the integrity of science is not, and should not be, a partisan issue. Signers of the scientists’ statement include advisors and appointees of both Republican and Democratic administrations. All policymakers have a stake in ensuring that policies are made on the basis of the best scientific and technical information available. And the standard of objectivity with which science is to be treated by policymakers was set and maintained by the Republican administrations of Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George Herbert Walker Bush. It was the first President Bush, when addressing the National Academy of Science, who said: “Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry, and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.” But just because the current administration’s abuses are unprecedented doesn’t mean that it should be assumed that a new administration – whether it takes office in 2005 or 2009 – will inevitably restore scientific integrity in federal policymaking. This administration is corrupting the very culture of science in our government, and cultural corruption is not easily excised. Every leader facing difficult choices wants to hear advice that confirms preconceptions and supports his or her politically favored agenda. The corrosive culture

3

that this administration has introduced to further its goals can also be used to further a different set of priorities. Impact on the Committee’s charge Scientists understand that public policy decisions must, in most cases, incorporate considerations other than science. Nevertheless, topflight scientists can only be expected to accept senior government positions and advisory committee appointments if they have good reason to believe that objective sciencebased input will actually be heard by decision makers, and not be distorted, suppressed or ignored. David Baltimore, President of the California Institute of Technology, stated in his comments to this committee: “Good people want to work in an environment where their work is appreciated. Scientists have many alternatives as to how they spend their time and are not going to work for or advise the government unless they believe that their work will be taken seriously. Thus, the environment for making appointments is determined by how the politicians view science: as a bedrock of policy or as a resource to be manipulated to political ends.” Dr. Lewis Branscomb, Professor emeritus at Harvard University and director of the National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) under President Nixon, was equally candid in his comments to you: “The most qualified independent thinkers,” he said, “may be concerned that the current government does not genuinely welcome rational, data founded technical advice if it seems inconsistent with political or ideological views held by the officials who will receive the advice.” The wellfounded perception that in many federal departments and agencies scientific appointees can no longer expect to work in the open, objective climate called for by the ethos of science represents a major obstacle to the federal government’s recruitment of senior scientists, whether as agency officials or advisory committee members. UCS suggests that this NAS Committee should directly address this issue if it is to fulfill its charge. Recommendations In our July 1 submission, UCS Chairman Kurt Gottfried and I suggested the committee make a number of recommendations in its report; I will summarize them here. 1). The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy should once again also be the Assistant to the President for Science & Technology, and thus report directly to the president. He or she should be appointed promptly after presidential elections, and be consulted automatically in the selection of directors of sciencerelated agencies such as NSF, NIH, CDC, FDA, NIST, NASA, and NOAA, as well as other senior scientific appointees in federal departments and agencies such as DOE, EPA, Interior and USDA.

4

These senior scientific appointments should not be based on political affiliation and should generally not be expected to change when the presidency changes hands. 2). Political meddling in the selection and activities of federal advisory committees associated with sciencebased policy should be scrupulously avoided. Such meddling makes membership in such committees unattractive to the most qualified individuals, and undercuts the credibility of their advice. 3). Scientists, engineers and health professionals, when they serve solely because of their expertise, should only be appointed to federal advisory committees as Special Government Employees (SGEs), and not as “representatives.” This is not a semantic distinction; SGEs are required to submit information disclosing any conflicts of interest they may have given the subject matter of the advisory committee they are being considered for, while “representatives” are not. As recently documented in a GAO report, many agencies have ignored this and other important features of the Federal Advisory Committee Act in composing their advisory committees. Furthermore, in the vetting process, it should be forbidden by statute to ask candidates for scientific advisory committees about their political or policy positions, let alone how they have voted. 4). When composing more policyrelated advisory committees with “representatives” to achieve FACArequired “balance,” departments should be required to formally disclose all nominees’ relationships with organizations or groups that have an interest (whether financial or ideological) in the outcome of their committee’s advice. 5). To address the vulnerability of fulltime scientific staff to actions by superiors that breach the ethical code of science by impeding or preventing the transmission of objective scientific information and advice to policy makers, the committee should consider recommending the creation of a corps of scientific ombudsmen within each department or agency that has an appreciable scientific staff. These senior scientists would work to resolve conflicts between scientists and their political superiors; they would have the right to report complaints that they could not resolve, while maintaining strict confidentiality, to the department’s Inspector General andsimultaneouslyto OSTP. The OSTP director and senior staff should be required to engage in resolving such conflicts. 6). The committee should recommend that Congress recreate the means for assessing science and technology issues independently of the Executive branch, because a Congress properly informed about such issues could play a much stronger role in eliciting sound scientific advice for the government of the United States. In this regard, we note the proposal by a bipartisan group of House members, including the Chair and Ranking Member of the Science Committee, to establish a Center for Scientific and Technical Assessment within the GAO. Thank you for the opportunity to share our views. We stand ready to provide any assistance we can as you pursue your important charge.

5

Los Angeles Times, June 26, 2004 Administration Tries to Rein In Scientists Health and Human Services Department orders vetting of experts on panels convened by the U.N.'s health agency. By Tom Hamburger Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON  The Bush administration has ordered that government scientists must be approved by a senior political appointee before they can participate in meetings convened by the World Health Organization, the leading international health and science agency. A top official from the Health and Human Services Department in April asked the WHO to begin routing requests for participation in its meetings to the department's secretary for review, rather than directly invite individual scientists, as has long been the case. Officials at the WHO, based in Geneva, Switzerland, have refused to implement the request thus far, saying it could compromise the independence of international scientific deliberations. Denis G. Aitken, WHO assistant directorgeneral, said Friday that he had been negotiating with Washington in an effort to reach a compromise. The request is the latest instance in which the Bush administration has been accused of allowing politics to intrude into oncesacrosanct areas of scientific deliberation. It has been criticized for replacing highly regarded scientists with industry and political allies on advisory panels. A biologist who was at odds with the administration's position on stemcell research was dismissed from a presidential advisory commission. This year, 60 prominent scientists accused the administration of "misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes." The president's science advisor, Dr. John Marburger, has called the accusations "wrong and misleading, inaccurate." The newest action has drawn fresh criticism, however, as the request has circulated among scientists. "I do not feel this is an appropriate or constructive thing to do," said Dr. D.A. Henderson, an epidemiologist who ran the Bush administration's Office of Public Health Preparedness and now acts as an official advisor to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. "In the scientific world, we have a generally open process. We deal with science as science. I am unaware of such clearance ever having been required before." Henderson worked for the WHO for 11 years directing its smallpox eradication program. He said he could not recall having to go through government bureaucrats to invite

6

scientists to participate in expert panels, except in the case of small Eastern European countries. In 2002, Henderson received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and was praised by Bush as "a great general in mankind's war against disease." A few scientists have been worried about the department's vetting demand since April, but concerns heightened this week when Rep. Henry A. Waxman (DLos Angeles) complained in a letter to Thompson. "The new policy … politicizes the process of providing the expert advice of U.S. scientists to the international community," Waxman wrote. Thompson's spokesman, Tony Jewell, called Waxman's criticism "seriously misguided." "No one knows better than HHS who the experts are and who can provide the most upto date and expert advice," Jewell said. "The World Health Organization does not know the best people to talk to, but HHS knows. If anyone thinks politics will interfere with Secretary Thompson's commitment to improve health in every corner of the world, they are sadly mistaken." The WHO, founded in 1947, is the United Nations agency dedicated to health. It is governed by 192 member states and conducts forums, recommends international health and safety standards and draws leading scientists from around the world to expert panels that review the latest literature on chemical, biological, industrial and environmental threats. The organization traditionally insists on picking experts to sit on official scientific review panels. "It's an important issue for us," Aitken said. "We do need independent science. If we want government positions, we have government meetings. We have many, many of these government assemblies, but they address a separate set of concerns" than the scientific gatherings. Scientists who attend the meetings are reminded that they are invited to offer their scientific views, not to represent their government or financial interests. The letter to Aitken declaring the new vetting policy was signed by William R. Steiger, special assistant to Thompson. He came to Washington with Thompson from Wisconsin, and is the son of a congressman and the godson of former President George H.W. Bush. "Except under very limited circumstances, U.S. government experts do not and cannot participate in WHO consultations in their individual capacity," Steiger wrote. Civil service and other regulations "require HHS experts to serve as representatives of the U.S. government at all times and advocate U.S. government policies."

7

The letter asserts that "the current practice in which the WHO invites specific HHS officials by name to serve in these capacities has not always resulted in the most appropriate selections." The letter provided no specifics. But WHO panels sometimes have disagreed with positions taken by the administration. A WHO panel met in Lyons, France, this month and declared formaldehyde a known carcinogen  relying on studies that Bush administration political appointees in the Environmental Protection Agency had rejected as inconclusive. Voting members of the panel included scientists from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health who had been authors of the studies. Several leading scientists said the new policy would undermine scientific deliberations. "This is really tampering with a process that has worked very well," said Linda Rosenstock, the dean of the UCLA School of Public Health who directed the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health under President Clinton. "To have this micromanaged at the HHS departmental level raises the specter that political considerations rather than scientific considerations will determine who is allowed to go" to the world's most important scientific meetings. Rosenstock said that some WHO divisions  including the one reviewing cancer threats  have become targets of industry groups. "There is real concern that science could be trumped by politics and vested interests." For Waxman, a frequent critic of the administration, the department's letter to the WHO is part of a pattern of mixing politics with science  and one he contends diminishes U.S. stature internationally.  Times staff writer Kathleen Hennessey contributed to this report.

8