Commentary:
Distorting good science to make 'political' science
By ARTHUR GREENBERG, New Hampshire Union Leader, October 16, 2004
Guest Commentary

LINK

THE ADMINISTRATION of President George W. Bush has been justly criticized by both Democrats and Republicans for its willful and continuing distortion of science practice and policy. Neither political party is innocent of putting its own spin on reality, but the Bush administration's spinning of science to serve politics and religious dogma is unprecedented. Some of the short-term consequences have already proven dire and the dangerous long-term consequences are impossible to imagine.

On March 2, Attorney General of the United States John Ashcroft stated that "America's economic strength depends on the integrity of the market's belief in the free flow of reliable information, the transparency of financial dealings, and the accountability of corporate officers." The occasion was the guilty plea of the chief financial officer of WorldCom Inc. to criminal charges of multi-billion dollar financial fraud. Mr. Ashcroft's powerful statement is one we can all appreciate - very few of us are experts in finance and so we must rely upon the veracity of financial data and their interpretation by experts in order to make sound decisions for our childrens' college funds and our own retirement funds. Truth and accuracy must be "the coin of the realm" or our financial well-being will rest upon shaky foundations.

Since decisions based upon science and technology are assuming increased importance in our daily lives, we must also depend upon "a free flow of reliable information" and honest interpretation of scientific findings. Since excellent scientists may occasionally differ on complex issues, we must be assured that science policy is based on sound, unbiased information and discourse, not political expediency. The consequences of politically motivated science decisions are expensive and sometimes even fatal.

For example, as the rush to pre-emptive war with Iraq gained momentum, the Bush administration loudly trumpeted incriminating scientific evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - high-strength aluminum tubes, ordered by Iraq, that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said in 2002 were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs."

However, an in-depth expose published by The New York Times on October 3 indicated that the government's own scientists concluded that these tubes were not meant for nuclear fuel enrichment but rather for conventional artillery shells. Back in 2002, this scientific evaluation was discounted, ignored and silenced because it did not fit the WMD "game plan." Confronted on ABC's "This Week" with the Times' article, Dr. Rice did not question its veracity, but admitted that "I knew that there was a dispute. I didn't really know the nature of the dispute" and then continued to laud the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.

Sadly, these distortions of scientific conclusions did not constitute a departure from the norm; they were, in fact, the norm itself.

In February, 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report and a summary statement titled "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking" that was signed by over 60 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates as well as former federal agency directors and university presidents. More than 5,000 scientists have since signed the summary statement which begins with words then-President George H.W. Bush spoke on April 23, 1990: "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".

The view advanced in these wise, non-partisan comments contrasts starkly with the current politically charged environment. For example, the current Bush administration so gutted the global warming section of the E.P.A.'s "Draft Report on the Environment" that the federal agency removed all discussion of this issue from its final report.

Shortly after its release, Russell Train, E.P.A. administrator for presidents Nixon and Ford said this in The New York Times: "I can state categorically that there never was such White House intrusion into the business of the E.P.A. during my tenure. The E.P.A. was established as an independent agency in the executive branch, and so it should remain. There appears to be a steady erosion in its independent status. I appreciate the President's interest in not having discordant voices within his administration. But

the interest of the American people lies in having full disclosure of the facts, particularly when the issue is one with such potentially enormous damage to the long-term health and economic well-being of all of us."

It was hardly a surprise when E.P.A. administrator Christine Todd Whitman, former Republican governor of New Jersey, resigned not long afterward.

But the problem is a much deeper one than merely "spinning" or suppressing scientific findings. The Bush administration has burrowed deep into the nation's scientific infrastructure and loaded scientific advisory committees with unqualified members having ideological agendas and clear conflicts of interest. These actions have so alarmed the scientific community that the world's largest scientific organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), issued a resolution in March, 2003 that "calls on the federal government to ensure the process of obtaining scientific, technical and medical advice follows the letter and spirit of the Federal Advisory Act and accords with democratic principles of governance." The Federal Advisory Act, passed in 1972, requires committees to be balanced in the points of views represented.

The instances described above are merely the "tip of the iceberg." The hazards of biased and dishonest science policy for our futures and those of our children are every bit as dangerous (and likely to be more so) as biased and dishonest financial data and advice. Unfortunately, it is not at all clear that the Bush administration perceives the urgent need to change its unprecedented and reckless course.

Dr. Arthur Greenberg lives in Rye and is professor of Chemistry and Dean of the College of Engineering and Physical Sciences of the University of New Hampshire in Durham. The views expressed here are his own and are not meant to represent the views of his college or the university.