Politics, spin, and science

Abstract

A US National Academy of Sciences panel made a remarkable recommendation last month, remarkable not for its content but that it had to be made at all. In the report, Science and technology in the national interest: ensuring the best presidential and federal advisory committee science and technology appointments, the panel recommends: “When a federal advisory committee requires scientific or technical proficiency, persons nominated to provide that expertise should be selected on the basis of their scientific and technical knowledge and credentials. It is inappropriate to ask them to provide nonrelevant information, such as voting record, political-party affiliation, or position on particular policies.” The panel apparently felt compelled to make this recommendation after reports that scientists under consideration for advisory board appointments were being questioned about their political views by the Bush administration. Concern over the politicisation of US science policy has been growing over the past 4 years. More than 5000 scientists have signed a statement sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists calling for the Bush administration to halt its misuse of science. Numerous examples of such abuse have been cited. Even public-health messages have been spun to advance the administration's political views. In 2002, for example, content on the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's website was changed to discourage the use of condoms and promote abstinence, the policy favoured by the Bush administration. Instructions on proper condom use were removed and condom failure rates were emphasised. In 2002, a breast cancer fact sheet on the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) website that had reported accurately that current scientific evidence did not indicate a link between induced abortion and breast cancer vanished and in its place appeared an analysis that, in keeping with the views of the administration's antiabortion supporters, gave greater weight to the arguments favouring a link. Political pressure has been used to alter scientific reports by government agencies on everything from the environment, to occupational health, to racial disparities in health care. These attempts have backfired embarrassing the administration and, sadly, seriously undermining the credibility of US agencies at home and abroad. In the case of the NCI website, after protests from scientists and members of Congress, the NCI held a workshop, which led to a new fact sheet that concluded again that the evidence did not indicate an association between abortion and breast cancer risk. The administration has no doubt pleased its supporters by putting its spin on science. But in doing so it has alienated top scientists who will be needed in the next 4 years. The administration would do well to heed the NAS panel's advice. The problems facing the USA and the world are increasingly complex, and officials will need the advice of scientists chosen for their expertise not their politics.