|
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.
President George H.W. Bush, April 23, 1990
|
|
| Attention Scientists |
|
We need you to support this statement calling for an end to scientific abuse—now more than ever.
Creating meaningful reform will require the persistent and energetic
engagement of the scientific community—in universities, laboratories,
government agencies, and companies across the United States.
We need engineers and ecologists, physicists and physicians,
psychologists and public health professionals—scientists of all
disciplines.
Sign the statement today—click here.
For a sampling of prominent signatories, click here.
To search for your colleagues who are among the 6,000+ current signers, click here.
|
Successful application of science has played a
large part in the policies that have made the United States of America
the world’s most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly
prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government
is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should
always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid
perilous consequences. Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to
by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and
implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has,
however, disregarded this principle.
When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its
political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process
through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by
placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear
conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory
committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring
and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by
simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations
have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically
nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are
not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes
misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the
implications of its policies.
For example, in support of the president’s decision
to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the
administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the
National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert
community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded
extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a
scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the
discussion of climate change and its consequences.
The administration also suppressed a study by the EPA
that found that a bipartisan Senate clean air proposal would yield
greater health benefits than the administration’s proposed Clear Skies
Act, which the administration is portraying as an improvement of the
existing Clean Air Act. “Clear Skies” would, however, be less effective
in cleaning up the nation’s air and reducing mercury contamination of
fish than proper enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act.
Misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge
for political purposes can have serious consequences. Had Richard Nixon
also based his decisions on such calculations he would not have
supported the Clean Air Act of 1970, which in the following 20 years
prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths and millions of cases of
respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Similarly, George H.W. Bush
would not have supported the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and
additional benefits of comparable proportions would have been lost.
The behavior of the White House on these issues is
part of a pattern that has led Russell Train, the EPA administrator
under Presidents Nixon and Ford, to observe, “How radically we have
moved away from regulation based on independent findings and
professional analysis of scientific, health and economic data by the
responsible agency to regulation controlled by the White House and
driven primarily by political considerations.”
Across a broad range of policy areas, the
administration has undermined the quality and independence of the
scientific advisory system and the morale of the government’s
outstanding scientific personnel:
-
Highly qualified scientists have been dropped from
advisory committees dealing with childhood lead poisoning,
environmental and reproductive health, and drug abuse, while
individuals associated with or working for industries subject to
regulation have been appointed to these bodies.
-
Censorship and political oversight of government
scientists is not restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the
Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior,
when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration’s
policies or with the views of its political supporters.
-
The administration is supporting revisions to the
Endangered Species Act that would greatly constrain scientific input
into the process of identifying endangered species and critical
habitats for their protection.
-
Existing scientific advisory committees to the
Department of Energy on nuclear weapons, and to the State Department on
arms control, have been disbanded.
-
In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to
acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the
administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at
Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan
political ends must cease if the public is to be properly informed
about issues central to its well being, and the nation is to benefit
fully from its heavy investment in scientific research and education.
To elevate the ethic that governs the relationship between science and
government, Congress and the Executive should establish legislation and
regulations that would:
-
Forbid censorship of scientific studies unless there is a reasonable national security concern;
-
Require all scientists on scientific advisory panels to meet high professional standards; and
-
Ensure public access to government studies and the findings of scientific advisory panels.
To maintain public trust in the credibility of the
scientific, engineering and medical professions, and to restore
scientific integrity in the formation and implementation of public
policy, we call on our colleagues to:
-
Bring the current situation to public attention;
- Request that the government return to the ethic and
code of conduct which once fostered independent and objective
scientific input into policy formation; and
- Advocate legislative, regulatory and administrative
reforms that would ensure the acquisition and dissemination of
independent and objective scientific analysis and advice.
See a list of prominent signatories.
|
Food and Environment Overview
Restoring Scientific Integrity
