Science Policy and Politics

Abstract

Science is never far from government policymaking. Throughout history, scientists have been rewarded or punished depending on whether their scientific views sup ported the policies preferred by the people in power. When science and the enlightenment that science fosters do not support politically favored policies, science suffers. During the last 4 years, we in the United States have observed a notable clash between science and an administration that believes it can make policy without open scientific debate. Now there are warnings from the White House of retribution against the science community that has challenged this ad ministration. Will the next 4 years be different? Will the Bush administration change its politicized approach to science or will it continue to attack, suppress, and misrepresent science to the public? Will distortion of science for policymaking be limited to domestic decisions, or will it impinge on programs beyond our borders-in other countries and in international organizations? The Bush administration has united the scientific com munity in protest over the way this administration has de meaned the integrity of science and scientists. Scientists' opposition to this administration is, in my memory, unprec edented. Scientists, new to bringing their scientific concerns into the public debate, have proceeded with caution and carefully reasoned analyses. Emanating from every scientific quarter, opposition to the administration's policies departs radically from the usually mild discontent with government science policy that is not uncommon in our country. Perhaps scientists perceive the very integrity of science to be in jeopardy. Surely, it is not surprising that epidemiologists are speaking out early. Epidemiologic research (which, among other things, assesses the human health consequences of exposures) has often experienced nasty political pressure. From the start, the administration opened a broad cam paign against science-based public health and environmental regulation. This administration has reversed science-based policy decisions on global warming,' arsenic in drinking water,2 ergonomics in the workplace,3 and diesel exhaust particulates in underground mines.4 The administration sub stituted policies that offended many advocates (and probably pleased others). More important, the process itself alarmed scientists because of its disregard for science. A more sys tematic attack on science policymaking has followed.