Bush Administration has manipulated scientific research "invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation"
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".
Example
Substance Abuse
The Administration undermined its ability to obtain scientific advice on substance abuse by using an apparent political litmus test for appointees to an important drug abuse research committee.
In 2002, Dr. William R. Miller, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at University of New Mexico, was invited to join the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse. This advisory committee guides policy and funding on drug abuse at NIH. Before Dr. Miller could be appointed, however, an official from Secretary Thompson’s office called him to ask several questions. These questions included whether he was sympathetic to faith-based initiatives, whether he supported abortion rights, whether he supported the death penalty for drug kingpins, and whether he had voted for President Bush.[1]
Dr. Miller recalled that Secretary Thompson’s aide said, "I need to vet you to determine whether you might have any views that would be an embarrassment to the president". After Dr. Miller answered that he does support needle exchange - a public health intervention proven to save lives but opposed by social conservatives - the aide responded, "That’s a problem". When asked whether he voted for Bush, Dr. Miller said that he had not. The aide asked, "Why didn’t you support the President?"[2]
The aide told Dr. Miller he would determine whether his views were acceptable. Dr. Miller was never called back, and his name was not on the final list of appointees.[3] Informed of what happened, Dr. Donald Kennedy, past president of Stanford University and editor of Science, commented:
I don’t think any administration has penetrated so deeply into the advisory committee structure as this one, and I think it matters... If you start picking people by their ideology instead of their scientific credentials, you are inevitably reducing the quality of the advisory group.[4]
[1] Advisors Put under a Microscope, Los Angeles Times (Dec. 23, 2002).
[2] UNM Prof Says Politics Move in on Science, Albuquerque Journal (Dec. 20, 2002).
[3] Id.
[4] Advisors Put under a Microscope, supra note 1.
CONCLUSION
Federal agencies with global reputations for scientific excellence depend upon the objective input of leading scientists and the impartial analysis of scientific evidence to develop effective policies. The Bush Administration, however, has repeatedly suppressed, distorted, or obstructed science to suit political and ideological goals. These actions go far beyond the traditional influence that Presidents are permitted to wield at federal agencies and compromise the integrity of scientific policymaking.
