Presidential Perspective
Science vs. Politics – The Shameful History
by James Gentile
President of Research Corporation
The Associated Press reported recently that the U.S. and China were seeking to change language in a draft report written by hundreds of the world’s leading climatologist, who have concluded that quick action could limit looming disasters associated with global warming.
Same old Bush Administration up to the same old anti-science hijinks, one might have wearily assumed. But suddenly, the news media were reporting the U.S. had surrendered in that particular battle, and the report was moving ahead as planned.
There was no explanation for this apparent about face, leading the more optimistic among us in the scientific community to hope that even the Bush Administration has finally realized the scope of the problem.
Time will tell. Unfortunately, however, capitulation in one battle does not mean the long war is won.
Meanwhile, the non-profit watchdog Government Accountability Project was reporting that after a review of thousands of administration emails, memos and other documents, it’s obvious the administration has made a concerted effort to stifle, delay or dampen the release of climate change research.
If Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), a point man for modern scientific thought, were alive today, he might feel the need to append his “knowledge is power” aphorism with something about willful ignorance of fact being the harbinger of doom.
The notion that politics trump science is despicable, particularly when the scientific facts point to issues affecting life on this planet for all humankind.
In 2003 the then-minority staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Special Investigations Division prepared a report on “Politics and Science in the Bush Administration for U.S. Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., and the House Committee on Government Reform. The report observed:
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 administration’s “leadership” in science has consisted of incidents that would be hard to swallow if they were paperback fictions. Unfortunately, they were not, and they have dulled America’s science edge.
Lest we forget, those moves have included, quoting the congressional report, distorting and suppressing scientific information:
Including Misleading Information in Presidential Communications. After banning research on new lines of embryonic stem cells, the American people were assured that research on “more than 60” existing cell lines “could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures.” In fact, only 11 cell lines were left 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 then-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 office 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 website to suggest that studies of equal weight conflicted on the question. In fact, there was scientific consensus that no such link existed; as the head of epidemiology research at the American Cancer Society had previously concluded, “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 in the business of the EPA during my tenure.”
The report also noted the administration heavy hand in:
Scrutinizing Ongoing Research. Officials of the National Institutes of Health warmed HIV researchers to expect increased scrutiny of any research grant requests using the words “gay” or “men who sleep with men.” The Administration also instituted a 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 EPA conduct analyses on air quality proposals that differ from the president’s Clear Skies Initiative. William Ruckelshaus, the first EPA administer 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.
Sadly, in the four long years since that report was issued, there has been little apparent slowing of the seemingly inexorable descent of the grim shroud of special-interest expediencies and faith-based policy initiatives over America’s once brilliant, but now sputtering, flame of scientific excellence. Overall, it has been nothing short of disaster, the kind that could make the issues faced by New Orleans look like a mere fender bender on the highway of history.
And, astonishingly, all of this is merely annoying background noise when compared to what’s happened to science funding during the latter half of this administration.
Struggling to pay for an ill-conceived war, or perhaps merely ignorant of science and its long-term benefits for our national economy, the administration has effectively allowed the federal budget for scientific research to stagnate, despite increasing competition from foreign programs. As a result, many research projects have been frozen in midstream, and eight out of 10 research grant applications now go unfunded, according to government figures. Moreover, the funding rate for early career scientists at the National Institutes of Health has reached the appallingly low level of four percent. That means 96 percent of young scientists seeking NIH support have research ideas that go unfunded.
A report appearing elsewhere on this website notes that Dr. Brent Iverson, Ph.D., a member of Research Corporation’s Board of Directors, recently testified before Congress. Iverson warned the results of research funding stagnation could be disastrous – fewer cutting-edge projects and more “safe” and conservative funding decisions will result in fewer spectacular scientific “breakthroughs.” Also, Iverson warned, we are facing the incalculable loss of an up-and-coming generation of creative young researchers who are becoming discouraged and deserting the sciences in droves. The damage this will do to America’s ability to remain competitive in scientific research in the coming decades, as well as to further basic science education, is nothing short of appalling.
When all is said and done, hasn’t the Bush Administration’s overall approach to science been a profound shame? The late, great Kurt Vonnegut could have written a darkly humorous novel about this national train wreck.
There is reason to hope, however. As they extend their newfound power in the 110 th Congress, the Democrats are pledging dramatic increases in the funding needed for basic research.
We were privileged, recently, to hear U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., newly appointed to the House the Science and Technology Committee, address a group of University of Arizona research scientists and the citizen donors who support them in Tucson. Although she is young and a first-termer in Congress, Giffords spoke with deep concern for the state of research funding in the U.S. and great enthusiasm for an upcoming Democratic push to reinvigorate the field.
It’s about time. While we take no political stand for or against Democrats or Republicans, it’s alarmingly obvious that the U.S. will have to fight the moral equivalent of war to stay on top in terms of global scientific achievement as other nations – including China and India -- enter the game with impressive numbers of science and engineering graduates and increasingly advanced research programs.
This is a fight America cannot afford to lose. The consequences of such a self-inflicted defeat – for our future economy, and for the happiness and well-being of our children and grandchildren -- are simply too horrific to contemplate. It would be as reprehensible as, say, doing nothing to reverse global warming while we still had a chance.