Statements and Speeches

Washington Science Policy Alliance
October 2, 2003

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the treatment of science and scientists in federal government with such a distinguished audience. I recognize that there is a certain incongruity to a politician calling attention to problems in science. My goal today is to explain to you why I became involved with this issue and why I believe it is of urgent concern to the scientific community.

Since my election to Congress in 1974, I have had the privilege of working closely with dozens of federal scientists at the National Institutes of Health, Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other science-based agencies. Relying on their expertise, I have helped to write and pass major legislation to structure our government's response to difficult problems of environmental protection and public health. Through both Democratic and Republican administrations, there has been a general understanding of a dividing line between the work of scientists, which is to assemble and analyze the best available evidence, and the work of policymakers, which is to decide what the nation's response to the science should be.

This system has worked extremely well. Our nation's scientific agencies are global models of excellence. Federal agencies have identified drug safety concerns missed by other countries, approved lifesaving drugs quickly, helped eradicate smallpox and pushed polio to the brink of extinction, and set major new environmental rules to protect air and water quality. These advances and so many others depend upon talented scientists having the freedom to pursue the right answer without worrying about crossing artificial political boundaries or flunking political litmus tests.

When there is scientific integrity, bad policy judgments cannot stand the test of time. I argued with the Reagan Administration for many years about the need for more aggressive action to contain the spread of HIV and AIDS. Eventually, as evidence on the growing epidemic emerged, many policy positions became indefensible and were reversed.

Today, however, the zone of protection for science and scientists is under unprecedented assault. Over the last two and a half years, I have followed numerous reports of Administration officials reaching across the dividing line and manipulating science to support pre-determined policies. There have been misleading statements by the President, erroneous testimony to Congress, altered web sites, stacked advisory committees, suppressed agency reports, and the gagging of scientists. Generally, these actions have served to support the political positions of social conservatives or powerful industry groups. In August, at my request, the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee released a study finding interference with science in 21 issue areas, ranging from abstinence-only education to breast cancer, from global warming to workplace safety. Three broad themes emerged in this investigation.

First, the investigation found numerous examples of political manipulation of advisory committees. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that federal committees be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented" and provide advice that "will not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest." Nonetheless, the investigation cited examples of distinguished scientists being quizzed by political staff on whom they voted for in the last election and what they think of various unrelated ideological issues. In other cases, national experts were dropped from committees and replaced by people with dubious scientific credentials but superb political connections.

Second, the investigation uncovered many instances where the administration distorted or suppressed scientific information in a manner that supported a political or ideological agenda. These included statements to Congress, the United Nations, and the American people.

Third, the report identified a number of cases of interference with scientific research. This interference included extra scrutiny applied to grant applications that include words that offend social conservatives like "gay" and "homosexual." It also included the blocking of publication of research that was opposed by an affected industry.

This report is available at www.politicsandscience.org. I urge you to visit this site if you have not already. You can sign up for updates and report concerns for the staff to investigate further.

The Administration's response, so far, has been to attempt to discredit me and the report. For example, the President's spokesperson was quoted in the New York Times as saying that the report was "riddled with distortions, inaccuracies and omissions." Nearly two months later, we are still waiting for the details of this assertion. (I am particularly interested in the omissions.)

This issue does not rise or fall on my scientific expertise. The report rests on a body of references in the medical literature, including strong statements in Science, Nature, the Lancet, and Scientific American. Science Editor Donald Kennedy has been particularly outspoken, calling attention to interference in areas "once immune to this kind of manipulation." The Lancet has opposed "growing evidence of explicit vetting of appointees . . . on the basis of their political or religious opinions." The report contains extensive citations to these and other references. The committee staff will update the web site as necessary.

Outside of the White House, the response to the report has been tremendous. The web site has been visited over 60,000 separate times, and more than 1,000 people, including many scientists, have requested updates, and we have received numerous phone calls of support from federal scientists. We are investigating more than 100 concerns shared, many of them anonymously.

The popular and scientific press has begun to take hold of this issue and we have received inquiries from many concerned scientific groups. Your interest in this issue is another testament to its resonance.

Let me conclude by asking a question: What is it about the report and, more importantly, what is it about this issue that has provoked such a strong response? I believe the answer has to do with the overall pattern of the Administration's actions.

Viewed one issue at a time, the Administration's actions can be hard to believe. For example, it is still astonishing to me that HHS Secretary Thompson replaced some of the nation's leading lead poisoning experts on a CDC committee with lead paint industry consultants, including one who believes a lead level of seven times the current standard - 70 micrograms per deciliter - is safe for children's brains.

It is also incredible that the Administration stands so alone in the world in denying the science of global warming.

But taken together, the Administration's actions are not simply puzzling but also alarming. The pattern of disrespect for science and scientists poses three grave dangers to federal policymaking.

First, and most importantly, the Administration risks undermining our ability to develop effective policies for the American people. For example, the EPA has been unable or unwilling to share objective analyses of climate change legislation that competes with the President's own proposal. According to a former EPA administrator under President Nixon, this refusal is illegitimate. The result is that Congress may be less likely to pass the policies that are needed to forestall global warming. We can no longer wait for the science to point us in the right direction, if any science that is contrary to the Administration's political goals is going to be suppressed.

Another area where sound policy is threatened is stem cell research. The President has consistently misled the American people about the number of embryonic stem cell lines available for research. In 2001, President Bush assured the American people that there were "more than 60" promising cell lines. Today, there are fewer than 15 available for researchers, and all have been grown on mouse feeder cells, rendering any resulting therapies inappropriate for patient care. The President used his misleading statements to justify a policy that will delay needed research into cures for diseases that affect millions of Americans.

Second, the Administration is undermining the American people's confidence in science-based agencies. The public expects officials to portray the state of science accurately, but when that doesn't occur, cynicism can set in.

Last summer, the National Cancer Institute pulled from its web site an analysis stating that scientific evidence discounted a link between abortion and breast cancer. The analysis explained that after some uncertainty before the mid-1990s, this issue had been resolved by several well-designed studies, the largest of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997.

In November 2002, however, the Bush Administration posted new information about abortion and breast cancer on the NCI web site. The new information ignored the scientific consensus and made it appear that abortion might cause breast cancer. No new data supported the changes. After tremendous criticism, the National Cancer Institute spent thousands of dollars to convene experts to revisit the question. The conclusion of this group, again, was that no link exists, and finally the web site was changed. It is not hard to see why such behavior can undermine Americans' confidence in science-based agencies.

Third, the Administration is risking an exodus of talented scientists from public service. The first law of politics and science is that a gagged scientist is not a productive scientist. The corollary to this law is that talented scientists who fear being gagged are less likely to join a science-based agency in the first place. I understand that because of political interference, morale at NIH is at an all-time low. This is particularly unfortunate at an agency that should be at its pinnacle of success, using historic funding increases to pursue new breakthrough treatments and cures.

If you share my concern over the integrity of federal policymaking, I urge you and your organizations to become involved. Even if your work has yet to be directly affected by this disturbing trend, I urge you to consider the principle at stake. Ultimately, success will depend upon a broad mobilization of the scientific community. I recognize that jumping into a politically charged debate is not usual or customary for many scientific organizations. But even small steps can be helpful at this critically important time.

In July, the Institute of Medicine reaffirmed that advisory committee appointments should be made "on a person's scientific or clinical expertise" and not "to advance political or ideological positions." Numerous organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have taken positions against political interference with science. Medical and scientific journals are watching developments in this area closely.

Such steps are essential, but may not be sufficient. We may need legislative safeguards that protect scientific integrity by enhancing the freedom and security of federal scientists. We may need professional standards that apply to political interference just as existing standards set limits on industry influence. We should work together to monitor the situation and develop these proposals.

Thank you for inviting me to talk with you about my involvement in this issue, and I look forward to your questions.