Lexington Kentucky Financial Adviser by yvk25305

VIEWS: 12 PAGES: 85

More Info
									    Has the Current US
Administration Distorted and/or
 Censored Scientific Results?
       Crispin H. Pierce, Ph.D.
  University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
                 Content
1. Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Report
2. Response to the Allegations Made in the UCS
   Report by the Office of Science and
   Technology Policy
3. Removal of Data Regarding Climate Change
4. Plagiarism of Industry Text for Government
   Policy
5. Effectiveness of “Abstinence-Only” Sex
   Education
6. Mr. Bush and Evolution
6. Abortion and Breast Cancer
7. Regulation of Publication of USDA
    “Sensitive Issues”
8. Aluminum Tubes and the
    War in Iraq
9. Nuclear Weapons and Iraq
10. Forest Management
11. Peer Review of Scientific Information
12. Changes in the Advisory Committee to
    Establish Lead Exposure Standards
13. NIOSH Workplace Injury
    Study Section
14. Appointment to the FDA Advisory
    Committee
15. Reproductive Health Appointments
16. Drug Abuse Committee Appointment
17. Army Science Board Appointment
18. National Nuclear Security Administration
19. Response From the Bush Administration
   Union of Concerned Scientists
              Report
• In February of 2004, the Union of Concerned
  Scientists published a report entitled Scientific
  Integrity: An Investigation into the Bush
  Administration‟s Misuse of Science
• This statement was endorsed by 62 prominent
  scientists, including 19 National Medal of
  Science signatories, 20 Nobel Laureates, and 3
  Crafoord Prize winners.
• The following discussion is an evaluation
  of the claims made in the UCS report
  using multiple peer-reviewed sources of
  information.
         OSTP Responses
• On April 2, 2004, Dr. John Marburger,
  director of the Office of Science and
  Technology Policy of the Bush
  Administration, provided responses to
  some of the allegations raised in the UCS
  report:
  http://www.ostp.gov/html/ucs/Responseto
  CongressonUCSDocumentApril2004.pdf
• These responses are italicized.
    Removal of Data Regarding
        Climate Change
• The New York Times: “Environmental
  Protection Agency is preparing to publish
  draft report on state of environment, but
  long section describing risks of global
  warming have been edited by Bush
  administration down to few noncommital
  paragraphs.”
• The Union of Concerned Scientist‟s
  February 2004 Report: “The following
  document is an internal EPA decision
  paper that addresses staff concerns about
  White House edits to the Report on the
  Environment [ROE]… The paper is dated
  April 29, 2003.”
• OSTP Response: “...the Administrator of
  the EPA decided not to include a short
  summary on climate change. Instead, the
  final EPA report referred readers to the far
  more expansive and complete exposition
  of climate change knowledge, the Climate
  Change Science Program (CCSP)
  Strategic Plan.”
    Plagiarism of Industry Text for
         Government Policy
• A January 31, 2004 story in the Washington
  Post stated that, “A side-by-side comparison of
  one of the [Bush Administration‟s] three
  proposed rules [for mercury emissions] and the
  memorandums prepared by Latham & Watkins --
  one of Washington's premier corporate
  environmental law firms -- shows that at least a
  dozen paragraphs were lifted, sometimes
  verbatim, from the industry suggestions.”
• OSTP Response: “The reference here is
  to a preamble of a proposed EPA rule to
  control (for the first time) mercury
  emissions from power plants. The text in
  question is in the preamble, not the
  proposed rule itself. … Such direct use of
  submitted memoranda should not have
  occurred.”
Effectiveness of “Abstinence-Only”
          Sex Education
• UCS Report: “…the Bush administration went
  further by distorting the U.S. Centers for Disease
  Control‟s (CDC) science-based performance
  measures to test whether abstinence-only
  programs were proving effective, such as
  charting the birth rate of female program
  participants. In place of such established
  measures, the Bush administration has required
  the CDC to track only participants‟ program
  attendance and attitudes, measures designed to
  obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only
  programs.”
• OSTP Response: “Currently, the Federal
  government funds abstinence-only
  education programs through the Health
  Resources and Services Administration,
  not CDC. The program was never
  designed as a scientific study, and so
  even if the original performance measures
  had been kept, little or no scientifically
  useable data would be obtained.”
      Mr. Bush and Evolution
• The Acumen Journal: “Just days before he
  was elected president, George W. Bush
  was asked for his opinion about evolution
  by The New York Times and he said that
  the „jury is still out.‟”
• No OSTP Response.
   Abortion and Breast Cancer
UCS Report: “…in a case the New York Times
 labeled „an egregious distortion of the evidence,‟
 information suggesting a link between abortion
 and breast cancer was posted on the National
 Cancer Institute website despite objections from
 CDC staff, who noted that substantial scientific
 study has long refuted the connection. After
 public outcry on the matter, the information has
 since been revised and no longer implies a
 connection.”
• OSTP Response: “The NCI fact sheet
  “Abortion and Breast Cancer” has been
  revised several times since it was first
  written in 1994. NCI temporarily removed
  the fact sheet from the website when it
  became clear that there was conflicting
  information in the published literature.”
• “In order to clarify the issue, in February
  2003 a workshop of over 100 of the
  world's leading experts...concluded that
  having an abortion or miscarriage does not
  increase a woman's subsequent risk of
  developing breast cancer. … A revised
  fact sheet was posted on the NCI website
  shortly after the workshop reflecting the
  findings.”
Regulation of Publication of USDA
        “Sensitive Issues”
• UCS Report: “Dr. James Zahn, a research
  microbiologist at the USDA who asserts
  that he was prohibited on no fewer than 11
  occasions from publicizing his research on
  the potential hazards to human health
  posed by airborne bacteria resulting from
  farm wastes.”
• OSTP Response: “In February 2002, Dr. Zahn was
  invited to speak at the Adair (Iowa) County Board of
  Health meeting in Greenfield, Iowa. Permission was
  initially granted by ARS management for Dr. Zahn to
  speak because it was thought that he was being invited
  to speak on his primary area of scientific expertise and
  government work, management of odors from hog
  operations. Permission for Dr. Zahn to speak
  representing the ARS at the meeting was withdrawn
  when it was learned that Dr. Zahn was expected to
  speak on health risks of hog confinement operations, an
  area in which Dr. Zahn did not have any scientific data or
  expertise.”
• “… on five occasions he was not
  authorized to discuss the public health
  ramifications of his observations on the
  spread of resistant bacteria, because he
  had no data or expertise with respect to
  public health.”
• UCS Report: “The following is an internal
  USDA document issued in February 2002
  that accompanied a directive to USDA
  staff scientists to seek prior approval
  before publishing any research or
  speaking publicly on „sensitive issues.‟
  The document was supplied by Dr. James
  Zahn, then on staff at USDA.”
“List of Sensitive Issues for ARS Manuscript
  Review and Approval by National Program
  Staff - February 2002 (Revised)
1. Creation of transgenic food or feed organisms
  by genetic engineering.
2. Studies of genetically engineered organisms in
  the field.
3. Cloning of animals by somatic cell nuclear
  transfer.
4. Somatic cell fusion to recombine DNA in ways
  that cannot be achieved through sexual
  crossing.
5. Dioxin research. …”
“7. Agricultural practices with negative health and
   environmental consequences, eg., global climate
   change; contamination of water by hazardous materials
   (nutrients, pesticides, and pathogens); animal feeding
   operations or crop production practices that negatively
   impact soil, water, or air quality. ...
10. Research findings and recommendations that are
   contrary to current dietary guidelines or may be used in
   food labeling. …
13. Harmful microorganisms and their products (e.g.,
   aflatoxin, mycotoxin, fumonisin, Salmonella, E. Coli) in
   agricultural commodities.
14. Pesticides or animal drugs in foods above approved
   tolerance levels.
15. All transmissible encephalopathy (TSE) research
   including BSE research.
16. Herbicide-resistant crop plant research.
17. Animal well-being/animal use. …”
• “USDA-ARS headquarters has had a long-
  standing, routine practice (at least 20 years) that
  has spanned several Administrations to require
  review of research reports of high visibility topics
  (called the “List of Sensitive Issues”). ARS
  headquarters review, when required, do not
  censor, or otherwise deny publication of, the
  research findings, but may aid in the
  interpretation and communication of the results,
  including providing advance alert to others.”
       Aluminum Tubes and the
             War in Iraq
• Isis Online: “The September 12, 2002 White
  House White Paper, A Decade of Deception and
  Defiance states: „Iraq has stepped up its quest
  for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a
  worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic
  bomb. In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to
  buy thousands of specially designed aluminum
  tubes which officials believe were intended as
  components of centrifuges to enrich uranium.‟”
• “Condoleezza Rice, the National Security
  Advisor, said on CNN Late Edition on
  September 8, 2002 that the aluminum
  tubes „are only really suited for nuclear
  weapons programs, centrifuge programs.‟”
• “The Vice President reinforced this point
  on NBC's Meet the Press, stating that
  Saddam Hussein „now is trying, through
  his illicit procurement network, to acquire
  the equipment he needs to be able to
  enrich uranium-specifically aluminum
  tubes.‟”
• Carnegie Endowment for International
  Peace: “„…Saddam Hussein is determined
  to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is
  so determined that he has made repeated
  covert attempts to acquire high-
  specification aluminum tubes from 11
  different countries…‟ (Secretary Powell,
  Address to United Nations Security
  Council, February 5, 2003)”
“„DOE (US Department of Energy) agrees that
    reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but
    assesses that the [aluminum] tubes probably are not part
    of the program.‟
„Iraq‟s efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the
    argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear
    weapons program, but INR [U.S. Department of State‟s
    Bureau of Intelligence and Research] is not persuaded
    that the tubes in question are intended for use as
    centrifuge rotors . . . The very large quantities being
    sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and
    the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the
    procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to
    the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the
    tubes are not intended for use in Iraq‟s nuclear weapon
    program.‟”
• “The administration also conveyed a deep-
  seated distrust of the inspectors‟ findings
  and conclusions. For example, the
  administration dismissed the IAEA‟s
  (International Atomic Energy Agency‟s)
  conclusion that Iraq‟s aluminum tubes
  were not destined for Iraq‟s nuclear
  enrichment program.”
• OSTP Response, quoting CIA Director
  George Tenet: “We have additional data to
  collect and more sources to question.
  Moreover, none of the tubes found in Iraq
  so far match the high-specification tubes
  Baghdad sought and may never have
  received the amounts needed [sic].”
   Nuclear Weapons and Iraq
• Carnegie Endowment for International
  Peace: “[W]e do know, with absolute
  certainty, that he is using his procurement
  system to acquire the equipment he needs
  in order to enrich uranium to build a
  nuclear weapon.” (Vice President Cheney,
  NBC „Meet the Press,‟ September 8,
  2002)”
• “„Intelligence gathered by this and other
  governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq
  regime continues to possess and conceal
  some of the most lethal weapons ever
  devised.‟ (President Bush, Address to the
  Nation on War with Iraq, March 17, 2003)”
• “IAEA Director General Mohamed
  ElBaradei reported to the UN Security
  Council on March 7, 2003, that: There is
  „no indication of resumed nuclear
  activities…nor any indication of nuclear-
  related prohibited activities at any
  inspected sites.‟”
• “„There is no indication that Iraq has
  attempted to import uranium since 1990.”
  The documents that indicated Iraq
  attempted to purchase uranium from Niger
  were declared „in fact not authentic.‟”
• “David Kay said on October 2, „to date we
  have not uncovered evidence that Iraq
  undertook significant post-1998 steps to
  actually build nuclear weapons or produce
  fissile material.‟”
• OSTP Response, quoting George Tenet:
  “… Saddam did not have a nuclear
  weapon; he still wanted one; and Iraq
  intended to reconstitute a nuclear program
  at some point. … We do not yet know if
  any reconstitution efforts had begun, but
  we may have overestimated the progress
  Saddam was making.”
           Forest Management
• UCS Report: “In an incident involving the management
  of national forests, the Bush administration created a
  five-person „review team‟ made up of predominantly
  nonscientists who proceeded to overrule a $12 million
  science-based plan for managing old-growth forest
  habitat and reducing the risk of fire in 11 national forests.
  This so-called Sierra Nevada Framework, which was
  adopted by the Clinton administration in 2001 after nine
  years of research by more than 100 scientists from the
  Forest Service and academia, had been viewed by the
  experts who reviewed it as an exemplary use of credible
  science in forest policy.”
• OSTP Response: “...the Forest Service
  received over 200 appeals of the [Sierra
  Nevada Framework] and had to review
  and respond to them. To address these
  appeals, the Regional Forester (Region
  Five – California) established the five-
  person Review Team to evaluate any
  needed changes to the [Framework]
  Record of Decision. One scientist provided
  scientific support to this team.”
      Peer Review of Scientific
            Information
UCS Report: “The administration‟s Office of
  Management and Budget [OMB] is
  creating a new way in which the federal
  government gathers and reviews scientific
  and technical information.
“This rule would centralize information
  review and use, even though OMB has not
  identified any inherent deficiencies with
  the current distributed system.”
• “The proposed rule would prohibit most
  scientists who receive funding from a
  government agency from serving as peer
  reviewers, but would permit scientists
  employed or funded by industry to serve
  as reviewers (unless they had a direct
  financial interest in the issue under
  review).”
• OSTP Response: “While the draft Bulletin
  cites government research funds as one
  factor that agencies should consider when
  determining which scientists should be
  selected, the listed factors are those
  „relevant to‟ the decision, not criteria that
  automatically exclude participation.”
      Changes in the Advisory
     Committee to Establish Lead
        Exposure Standards
Report by the staff of Representative Ed Markey:
“This report reveals recent changes to the membership of
the Advisory Committee that indicate that the nominations
of renowned scientists with a long record in determining
the health effects associated with childhood lead poisoning
are being rejected, and that instead the vacancies are
being filled by individuals who have direct ties to the lead
industry, which has a financial interest in the policies
adopted by the Advisory Committee.”
• Reappointment rejected: “Dr. Michael
  Weitzman, Department of Pediatrics,
  University of Rochester, and Pediatrician
  in Chief, Rochester General Hospital,
  Advisory Committee member since 1997,
  author of numerous peer-reviewed
  publications on lead poisoning.”
• Nominations rejected: “Dr. Bruce Lanphear,
  Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics,
  University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio,
  currently the Sloan Professor of Children's
  Environmental Health, author of numerous peer-
  reviewed publications on lead poisoning.
• “Dr. Susan Klitzman, Associate Professor of
  Urban Public Health at the Hunter College
  School of Health Sciences, author of numerous
  peer-reviewed publications on lead poisoning.”
• Nominations accepted: “Dr. William Banner, expert
  witness for the lead industry who believes that lead is
  harmful only at levels that are 7-10 times as high as the
  current CDC blood lead levels.
• “Dr. Joyce Tsuji, principal scientist for Exponent, a
  company whose corporate clients include ASARCO
  (which is currently disputing EPA's assumptions that
  ASARCO is the source of elevated arsenic and lead in
  residential soils in El Paso and fighting Superfund
  designation) and King and Spalding, a DC law firm
  representing several large lead firms, and who has
  testified that the health risks of toxic plumes were not
  imminent.”
• “Dr. Kimberly Thompson, Assistant Professor of
  Risk Analysis and Decision Science, Harvard
  School of Public Health, affiliated with the
  heavily industry-funded Harvard Center for Risk
  Analysis. HCRA has 22 corporate funders with a
  financial interest in the deliberations of the CDC
  Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead
  Poisoning Prevention and less stringent
  regulation of lead. Three of these funders have
  Superfund sites with lead contamination - Ciba-
  Geigy Corporation, FMC Corporation, and
  Monsanto.”
• “Dr. Sergio Piomelli, Professor, Columbia
  Presbyterian Medical Center, researcher
  who reportedly disagrees with the current
  blood lead standard set by the CDC
  Advisory Committee in 1991.
• “Tracey V. Lynn, affiliation and lead
  poisoning expertise not able to be
  determined.”
• OSTP Response: “Regarding the suggestion
  that two appointees had ties to the industry,
  every candidate is put through a rigorous ethics
  process that includes a conflicts of interest
  analysis. … Regarding the issue of appointment
  of advisory committee members, the members in
  question replaced outgoing members who had
  served several terms and others had permissibly
  served beyond the expiration of their present
  terms.”
         NIOSH Workplace Injury
             Study Section
UCS Report: “In a well-documented case involving HHS,
  Secretary Thompson dismissed three well-qualified
  experts on ergonomics from a narrowly focused peer
  review panel at the National Institute for Occupational
  Safety and Health (NIOSH). The three nominees in
  question had been selected to join a so-called study
  section of the Advisory Committee on Occupational
  Safety and Health that evaluates research grants on
  workplace injuries. Based on their credentials and
  reputations in the field, the three had been chosen by the
  committee chair and panel staff, and had initially been
  approved by the director of NIOSH.”
• “Dr. Laura Punnett, a professor at the University
  of Massachusetts at Lowell, states she has little
  doubt that she was removed from the study
  section for political reasons. There were no
  complaints about her work during the year she
  served in an ad hoc basis on the study section
  and she was told upon her dismissal by the chair
  of the study section that her removal had nothing
  to do with her credentials or the quality of her
  work.”
• Science Magazine: One of the rejected
  nominees, ergonomics expert Laura
  Punnett of the University of Massachusetts
  stated "I was shocked," [about being
  rejected]. "I think it conveys very
  powerfully that part of the goal is to
  intimidate researchers and limit what
  research questions are asked."
• Dana Lewis, in Science Magazine: “I am
  chair of one of the affected study sections,
  which reviews research grant proposals
  submitted to the National Institute for
  Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
  and other agencies. … Secretary
  Thompson's office recently sent word that
  three candidates nominated for permanent
  membership on the study section would
  not be confirmed.”
• “The secretary declined to give reasons for
  rejecting the three scientists nominated for
  membership on the study section. They are all
  established scientists who had served as
  temporary members for some time and whose
  qualifications had been duly reviewed and
  approved at every other level. The reasoning
  nevertheless seems clear in at least one case:
  One of the rejected nominees is an expert in
  ergonomics who has publicly supported a
  workplace ergonomics standard.”
• “This level of political interference with
  peer review is an ominous precedent for
  research throughout the federal
  government. … All scientists who have
  served as reviewers or rely on study
  sections for expert, unbiased reviews
  should be concerned, and so should the
  end-users of the knowledge that federally
  funded research generates.”
• Science Magazine: “One nominee who was
  recently screened for the panel says that she
  was asked politically charged questions by a
  member of Thompson's staff. Pamela Kidd, an
  expert in injury prevention and associate dean of
  the College of Nursing at Arizona State
  University in Tempe, says that the staffer called
  in September and asked if she would be an
  advocate on certain issues involving ergonomics
  if appointed to the panel.”
• OSTP Response: “Agencies typically
  review many individuals to serve on
  advisory panels and they may be rejected
  for a variety of reasons. In this instance,
  one of the scientists that the UCS
  mentions was actually selected to be
  appointed to the committee.”
  Appointment to the FDA Advisory
           Committee
• Time Magazine: “Dr. W. David Hager, an obstetrician-
  gynecologist who also wrote, with his wife Linda, Stress
  and the Woman's Body, which puts „an emphasis on the
  restorative power of Jesus Christ in one's life‟ and
  recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for
  such ailments as headaches and premenstrual
  syndrome. Though his resume describes Hager as a
  University of Kentucky professor, a university official
  says Hager's appointment is part time and voluntary and
  involves working with interns at Lexington's Central
  Baptist Hospital, not the university itself. In his private
  practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses
  to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager
  did not return several calls for comment.”
• OSTP Response: “Both the individuals
  [including Dr. Hager] cited by the UCS are
  in fact well qualified. Their CV‟s are widely
  available and it is not necessary to repeat
  them here.”
Reproductive Health Appointments
• The American Psychological Association:
  “Since [the] summer [of 2002], members of
  the scientific community have become
  increasingly concerned that federal
  scientific advisory committees are being
  unduly influenced by political
  considerations.”
• “Their concerns have been spurred by a
  series of controversial decisions by the
  agencies that administer those
  committees, including…The decision by
  the Department of Health and Human
  Services (HHS) to replace the National
  Human Research Protections Advisory
  Committee with a smaller committee, the
  charter of which describes embryos and
  fetuses as „human subjects.‟”
• No OSTP response.
• Science Magazine: “The White House's willingness to
  twist science for political purposes has extended beyond
  these episodes. As organizations and individuals
  committed to safe and effective public health services
  that are grounded in scientific evidence, we are
  particularly worried about the incursion of groups such
  as the Family Research Council and the Traditional
  Values Coalition into recent CDC meetings on HIV
  prevention. At those meetings, representatives from
  these organizations have advocated for abstinence-only
  education, the ineffectiveness of condoms, and
  reparative therapy for homosexuality as an AIDS
  prevention tool, despite the preponderance of evidence
  contradicting the assertion that such approaches are
  effective.”
• No OSTP response.
          Drug Abuse Committee
               Appointment
• The American Psychological Association: “Dr. William
  Miller says he received a call from a White House liaison
  in January 2002 about his nomination to the National
  Advisory Committee on Drug Abuse. The staffer asked
  him…questions about his stance on faith-based
  initiatives, abortion, capital punishment, needle-
  exchange programs and drug legalization. After each
  question, says Miller, the staffer gave him a running tally
  of „correct‟ answers--those that matched President
  Bush's policies. The staffer also asked him whether he
  had voted for Bush in the 2000 presidential election and,
  when Miller said he had not, asked him why he hadn't.”
• OSTP Response: “The HHS Office of the
  Secretary recommended that Dr. Miller be
  considered for this panel and NIDA did not
  concur. The decision by NIDA/NIH was not
  based on any conversations with any
  members of the Secretary‟s Office.”
 Army Science Board Appointment
• WE Howard III in Science Magazine: “Last fall, I
  was part of a group, most of whom had been
  consultants to the Army Science Board (ASB),
  who were nominated to become full members of
  that Board, which is composed of scientists,
  engineers, and retired flag-rank military whose
  mission is to advise the Army on technical
  matters. The Army passed our names to the
  White House Liaison Office in the Office of the
  Secretary of Defense (OSD) after the Army's
  approval. Once there, however, about a dozen
  of us were disapproved.”
• “I was also told by a member of the ASB
  staff that I was supposed to have
  contributed to Senator John McCain‟s
  campaign—the reason for my being
  disapproved.”
• OSTP Response: “This contention is
  without support.”
        National Nuclear Security
             Administration
UCS Report: “The National Nuclear Security Administration
  (NNSA) is the agency within the DOE responsible for
  maintaining the nation‟s nuclear weapons stockpile, and
  the ability to design and test new nuclear warheads
  should the president decide to acquire them. When
  Congress established the NNSA in 2000, it also created
  an independent, external technical advisory committee.
  This committee, formed in 2001, had a membership that
  included a number of distinguished physicists and
  technical experts with extensive knowledge of nuclear
  weapons, as well as former government officials and
  retired senior military officers. The committee was
  summarily abolished in June 2003.”
• “Some of the physicists on the committee
  had published articles explaining that
  nuclear weapons have only a limited
  capability to destroy deeply buried targets
  and, furthermore, that such attacks would
  inevitably produce a great deal of
  radioactive fallout.”
“Nevertheless, a senior NNSA official expressed
  displeasure about the articles to the authors,
  presumably because the administration‟s 2001
  Nuclear Posture Review called for development
  of such weapons and President Bush‟s FY04
  budget included funds for research on these so-
  called nuclear „bunker busters.‟ The NNSA
  administrator has justified the abolition of the
  committee because there is „no shortage of
  advice‟ and „there are a lot of physicists who
  work‟ at the weapons labs.”
• OSTP Response: “The NNSA Advisory
  Committee was established in June 2001,
  not by Congress, but by the Department of
  Energy ... As is the case with most
  advisory committees, the NNSA
  committee was established for a period
  not to exceed two years. The charter
  expired in June of 2003 and was not
  renewed.”
         Response From the Bush
             Administration
The New York Times: “Dr. John H. Marburger III, science
    adviser to President Bush and director of the Office of
    Science and Technology Policy at the White House, said
    it was important to listen to „the distinguished scientific
    leadership in this country.‟ But he said the report
    consisted of a largely disconnected list of events that did
    not make the case for a suppression of good scientific
    advice by the administration.
„I think there are incidents where people have got their
    feathers ruffled,‟ Dr. Marburger said. „But I don't think
    they add up to a big pattern of disrespect.‟
„In most cases,‟ he added, „these are not profound actions
    that were taken as the result of a policy. They are
    individual actions that are part of the normal processes
    within the agencies.‟”
   History of Political Influence on
            US Research
• UCS Report: Russell Train, the EPA
  Administrator under Presidents Nixon and
  Ford stated “In all my time at the EPA, I
  don‟t recall any regulatory decision that
  was driven by political considerations.
  More to the present point, never once, to
  my best recollection, did either the Nixon
  or Ford White House ever try to tell me
  how to make a decision.”
• “My sense is that, from the beginning of
  the Bush administration, the White House
  has constantly injected itself into the way
  the EPA approaches and decides the
  critical issues before it. The agency has
  had little or no independence. I think that
  is a very great mistake, and one for which
  the American people could pay over the
  long run in compromised health and
  reduced quality of life.”
• William Ruckelshaus, the first EPA
  administrator under President Nixon,
  stated “Is the analysis flawed? That is a
  legitimate reason for not releasing [a
  science-based analysis]. But if you don‟t
  like the outcome that might result from the
  analysis, that is not a legitimate reason.”
              Assignment
• Consider the information presented in
  these slides, as well as other perspectives
  from independent sources.
• Share your opinion on whether the
  allegations in the Union of Concerned
  Scientists‟ report are true or false in the
  Discussion.

								
To top