SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

A group of prestigious scientists recently issued a report accusing the Bush administration of distorting scientific information for political gains. The administration immediately retorted that it was the Nobel laureates and heads of some of the country’s leading research universities who were politicizing science. Such bickering could be considered business as usual in Washington if the consequences weren’t so serious.

In their report, the 62 members of the Union of Concerned Scientists condemn the Bush administration for manipulating the advice of policy experts and ignoring findings that counter its political goals. As examples the group cites the deletion of a 1,000-year temperature record and references to the contribution of human activity on global warming from a 2003 Environmental Protection Agency report on climate change and the removal of data on mercury poisoning and other air pollution issues from other EPA reports.

Other examples include the suppression of information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that showed sex education programs that did not insist on abstinence only could be successful and deleting information about condom use in anti-AIDS material. The administration also pressured the National Cancer Institute to make claims about links between abortion and breast cancer long after such a connection had been debunked.

Even the best scientists can be wrong and, in fact, hearty debate is a hallmark of the scientific community.

However, the Bush administration’s reliance on a small body of science that supports its policies while ignoring a larger, often contradictory, body of research is troubling and could likely have consequences for human health and environmental protection.

The union’s president, Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University, was clear that the group was not attacking the administration’s policies, but rather the distortion of science that led to these policies. “Across a broad range of issues, the administration has undermined the quality of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government’s outstanding scientific personnel,” Professor Gottfried told The Washington Post. “Whether the issue is lead paint, clean air or climate change, this behavior has serious consequences for all Americans.”

The union’s call for congressional review of the situation is a good one and, in small part, is already under way. Last year, a bipartisan group of senators, including Maine’s, rebuked the EPA for withholding analyses of competing proposals before deciding to move ahead with a weakened mercury emissions rule. Maine’s senators also joined a bipartisan group of colleagues in calling for analysis of competing clean air bills in order to determine if the administration’s proposal would achieve the benefits it was touted to.

If the Bush administration continues its pattern of picking and choosing among scientific information, such calls for more analysis should not only continue, but be stepped up.