Politics and the Bush Administration

Prepared for Rep. Henry A Waxman
United States House of Representatives
Committee on Government Reform
Minority Staff Special Investigations Division
7aug03

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The American people depend upon federal agencies to promote scientific research and to develop science-based policies that protect the nation’s health and welfare. Historically, these agencies — such as the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental Protection Agency — have had global reputations for scientific excellence.

Recently, however, leading scientific journals have begun to question whether scientific integrity at federal agencies has been sacrificed to further a political and ideological agenda. As the editor of Science wrote earlier this year, there is growing evidence that the Bush Administration “invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation.”

At the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, this report assesses the treatment of science and scientists by the Bush Administration. It finds numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings. These actions go far beyond the typical shifts in policy that occur with a change in the political party occupying the White House. Thirteen years ago, former President George H.W. Bush stated that “[n]ow more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research . . . government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.” Today, President George W. Bush’s Administration has skewed this impartial perspective, generating unprecedented criticism from the scientific community and even from prominent Republicans who once led federal agencies.

The Administration’s political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the President, inaccurate responses to Congress, altered web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications, and the gagging of scientists. The subjects involved span a broad range, but they share a common attribute: the beneficiaries of the scientific distortions are important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups.

The report identifies over twenty scientific issues affected by the undermining of science, including:

• Abstinence education, where performance measures were changed to make unproven “abstinence-only” programs appear effective;
  
  
• Condom use, where information about condom use and efficacy was deleted from CDC’s web site;
  
  
• Global warming, where reports by the Environmental Protection Agency on the risks of climate change were suppressed;
  
  
• Missile defense, where Defense Department officials presented misleading information on whether a functional system could be quickly deployed; and
  
  
• Wetlands policy, where comments from scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service on the destructive impacts of proposed regulatory changes were withheld.

Other affected topics include HIV/AIDS, agricultural pollution, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, environmental health, lead poisoning, oil and gas exploration, prescription drug advertising, stem cells, substance abuse, drinking water, women’s health, workplace safety, and Yellowstone National Park.

Across this wide range of issues, the report identifies the three principal ways in which the Bush Administration has pursued its agenda: by manipulating scientific advisory committees, by distorting and suppressing scientific information, and by interfering with scientific research and analysis.

Manipulating Scientific Advisory Committees

Scientific advisory committees assure that the government hears from the nation’s top experts in a particular field before creating policy in that area. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that such committees be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented” and requires that advice and recommendations “not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest.” The Bush Administration, however, has repeatedly manipulated the advisory committee process to advance its political and ideological agenda. Examples include:

• Appointing Unqualified Persons with Industry Ties. After dropping three national experts in lead poisoning from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention, the Department of Health and Human Services appointed several individuals with ties to the lead industry, including a lead industry consultant who had testified that a lead level seven times the current limit is safe for children’s brains.
  
  
• Appointing Unqualified Persons with Ideological Agendas. The Department of Health and Human Services nominated as chair of the FDA’s Reproductive Health Drug Advisory Committee an anti-abortion activist who recommends that women read the bible for relief of premenstrual symptoms. The appointee’s principal credential appears to be his opposition to the abortifacient RU-486. The medical journal Lancet described his scientific record as “sparse” and wrote that “[a]ny further right-wing incursions on expert panels’ membership will cause a terminal decline in public trust in the advice of scientists.”
  
  
• Stacking Advisory Committees. The Department of Health and Human Services replaced 15 of 18 members of the key advisory committee to the National Center on Environmental Health. Several of the new members were long-time industry consultants. In response, ten leading scientists wrote in Science that “stacking these public committees out of fear that they may offer advice that conflicts with administration policies devalues the entire federal advisory committee structure and the work of dedicated scientists who are willing to participate in these efforts.”
  
  
• Opposing Qualified Experts. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected a widely respected expert’s nomination to a grant review panel on workplace safety after it became clear that she supported rules to protect workers from musculoskeletal injuries, rules that the Bush Administration opposes. The head of the panel called the rejection “directly opposed to the philosophy of peer review, which is supposed to be nonpolitical and transparent.”

Distorting and Suppressing Scientific Information

The public relies on government agencies for accurate scientific information, evidence-based decision making on matters of life and health, and clear explanations of complex technical matters. Under the Bush Administration, however, Administration officials have withheld or skewed important scientific information that conflicts with the Bush Administration’s ideological and political agenda. Examples include:

• Including Misleading Information in Presidential Communications. After banning research on new lines of embryonic stem cells, President Bush assured the American people that research on “more than 60” existing lines cells “could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures.” In fact, only 11 cell lines are now available for research, all of which were grown with mouse cells, rendering them inappropriate for treating people.
  
  
• Presenting Incomplete and Inaccurate Information to Congress. When Interior Secretary Gale Norton assured Congress that drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge would not harm the region’s caribou population, she altered or omitted multiple key scientific conclusions prepared by federal biologists at the refuge. One Fish and Wildlife Service official commented, “We tried to present all the facts, but she only passed along the ones she liked. And to pass along facts that are false, well, that’s obviously inappropriate.”
  
  
• Altering Web Sites. As social conservatives campaigned to require women to be “counseled” about an alleged risk of breast cancer from abortions, the National Cancer Institute revised its web site to suggest that studies of equal weight conflicted on the question. In fact, there is scientific consensus that no such link exists; as the head of epidemiology research at the American Cancer Society had concluded previously, “This issue has been resolved scientifically . . . . This is essentially a political debate.”
  
  
• Suppressing Agency Reports. After the White House edited a discussion of global warming in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft Report on the Environment, agency scientists objected that the draft “no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change,” and EPA chose to eliminate the discussion entirely. A former EPA Administrator in the Nixon and Ford Administrations commented, “I can state categorically that there was never such White House intrusion into the business of the E.PA. during my tenure.”

Interfering with Scientific Research

The federal government invests $100 billion annually in scientific research to discover new cures, protect the environment, defend the country, and support other effective policies for the health and welfare of the American people. But instead of encouraging the development and dissemination of objective scientific information, the Bush Administration has repeatedly interfered with scientific research and analysis where political and ideological interests are at stake. Examples include:

• Scrutinizing Ongoing Research. Officials of the National Institutes of Health warned HIV researchers to expect increased scrutiny of any research grant requests using the words “gay” or “men who sleep with men.” The Administration has also instituted a new policy at the Agriculture Department requiring scientists to seek approval of any research on “agricultural practices with negative health and environmental consequences.”
  
  
• Obstructing Agency Analyses. The Bush Administration refused to let the Environmental Protection Agency conduct analyses on air quality proposals that differ from the President’s “Clear Skies” initiative. William Ruckelshaus, the first EPA administrator under President Nixon, said of this pattern, “Is the analysis flawed? That is a legitimate reason for not releasing it. But if you don’t like the outcome that might result from the analysis, that is not a legitimate reason.”
  
  
• Undermining Outcome Assessment. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used to evaluate sex education programs and identify those with scientific evidence of effectiveness. After social conservatives complained that none of the programs taught “abstinence only,” the agency ended the “Programs That Work” initiative altogether.
  
  
• Blocking Scientific Publication. The Agriculture Department prohibited one of its microbiologists from publishing or presenting research indicating that industrial hog farming may contribute to antibiotic resistance. The scientist traced the Department’s actions back to communications from industry.

This report describes these and other examples of interference in the scientific process. While in a few cases the Bush Administration reversed itself or admitted error, most of these actions, policies, and appointments remain in effect.

source of complete report: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf 18aug03