<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<title>How Science Became a Partisan Issue</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p
{margin-right:0in;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><!-- Converted from text/rtf format --> </span></font><b><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:
bold'>Subject:</span></font></b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> How Science Became a Partisan
Issue</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:
Arial;color:navy'>ATTENTION SCIENTISTS: </span></font> <br>
<font face=Arial><span style='font-family:Arial'>The following article should
alarm Dems and Reps alike. There is a link at the bottom to a comprehesive
study by the Union of Concerned Scientist<font color=navy><span
style='color:navy'>s</span></font>.</span></font></p>
<p><b><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-weight:bold'>THE NEW YORK TIMES</span></font></b> <br>
<b><font size=2><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>October 19,
2004</span></font></b> <br>
<b><font size=5><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Bush vs. the
Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue</span></font></b> <br>
<b><font size=2><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>By ANDREW C.
REVKIN</span></font></b> <br>
<br>
<br>
Why is science seemingly at war with President Bush? <br>
For nearly four years, and with rising intensity, scientists in and out of
government have criticized the Bush administration, saying it has selected or
suppressed research findings to suit preset policies, skewed advisory panels or
ignored unwelcome advice, and quashed discussion within federal research
agencies. </p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Administration
officials see some of the criticism as partisan, and some perhaps a function of
unrealistic expectations on the part of scientists about their role in policy
debates. "This administration really does not like regulation and it
believes in market processes in general," said Dr. John H. Marburger III,
the president's science adviser, who is a Democrat.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"So
there's always going to be a tilt in an administration like this one to a
certain set of actions that you take to achieve some policy objective," he
went on. "In general, science may give you some limits and tell you some
boundary conditions on that set of actions, but it really doesn't tell you what
to do."</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Dr. Jesse
H. Ausubel, an expert on energy and climate at </span></font>Rockefeller University,
said some of the bitterness expressed by other researchers could stem from
their being excluded from policy circles that were open to them under previous
administrations. "So these people who believe themselves important feel
themselves belittled," he said.</p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Indeed,
much of the criticism has come from private groups, like the Union of Concerned
Scientists and many environmental organizations, with long records of opposing
positions the administration favors.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Nevertheless,
political action by scientists has not been so forceful since 1964, when Barry
Goldwater's statements promoting the deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons
spawned the creation of the 100,000-member group Scientists and Engineers for
Johnson.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>This
year, 48 Nobel laureates dropped all pretense of nonpartisanship as they signed
a letter endorsing Senator John Kerry. "Unlike previous administrations,
Republican and Democratic alike, the Bush administration has ignored unbiased
scientific advice in the policy making that is so important to our collective
welfare," they wrote. The critics include members of past Republican
administrations.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>And
battles continue to erupt in government agencies over how to communicate
research findings that might clash with administration policies. </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>This
month, three NASA scientists and several officials at NASA headquarters and at
two agency research centers described how news releases on new global warming
studies had been revised by administrators to play down definitiveness or
risks. The scientists and officials said other releases had been delayed.
"You have to be evenhanded in reporting science results, and it's apparent
that there is a tendency for that not to be occurring now," said Dr. James
E. Hansen, a climate expert who is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for
Space Studies in </span></font>Manhattan.</p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Glenn
Mahone, the assistant administrator of NASA for public affairs, yesterday
denied that any releases on climate had been held up or modified by anything
other than normal reviews. "There has been a slowdown," he said. </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>But he
insisted, "There is nothing in terms of any kind of approval process with
the White House." <br>
Earlier this year, after continuing complaints that the White House was asking
litmus-test questions of nominees for scientific advisory panels, the first question
asked of a candidate for a panel on Arctic issues, the candidate said, was:
"Do you support the president?"</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>When
asked about such incidents, officials with the Bush campaign call attention to
Mr. Bush's frequent queries to the National Academy of Sciences as evidence of
his desire for good advice on technical issues.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"This
president believes in pursuing the best, most objective science, and his record
proves that," said Brian Jones, a campaign spokesman. </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Yet
complaints about the administration's approach to scientific information are
coming even from within the government. Many career scientists and officials
have expressed frustration and anger privately but were unwilling to be
identified for fear of losing their jobs. But a few have stepped forward,
including Dr. Hansen at NASA, who has been researching global warming and
conveying its implications to Congress and the White House for two decades.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Dr.
Hansen, who was invited to brief the Bush cabinet twice on climate and whose
work has been cited by Mr. Bush, said he had decided to speak publicly about
the situation because he was convinced global warming posed a serious threat
and that further delays in addressing it would add to the risks.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"It's
something that I've been worrying about for months," he said, describing
his decision. "If I don't do something now I'll regret it. </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"Under
the Clinton-Gore administration, you did have occasions when Al Gore knew the
answer he wanted, and he got annoyed if you presented something that wasn't
consistent with that," Dr. Hansen said. "I got a little fed up with
him, but it was not institutionalized the way it is now."</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Under the
Bush administration, he said, "they're picking and choosing information
according to the answer that they want to get, and they've appointed so many
people who are just focused on this that they really are having an impact on
the day-to-day flow of information."</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Disputes
between scientists and the administration have erupted over stem cell policy,
population control and </span></font>Iraq's nuclear weapons research. But
nowhere has the clash been more intense or sustained than in the area of
climate change. </p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>There the
intensity of the disagreements has been stoked not only by disputes over
claimed distortion or suppression of research findings, but on the other side
by the enormous economic implications. </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Several
dozen interviews with administration officials and with scientists in and out
of government, along with a variety of documents, show that the core of the
clash is over instances in which scientists say that objective and relevant
information is ignored or distorted in service of pre-established policy goals.
Scientists were essentially locked out of important internal White House
debates; candidates for advisory panels were asked about their politics as well
as their scientific work; and the White House exerted broad control over how
scientific findings were to be presented in public reports or news releases. </span></font></p>
<p><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-weight:bold'>An Early Skirmish</span></font></b> <br>
Climate emerged as a prickly issue in the first months of Mr. Bush's term, when
the White House began forging its energy policy and focusing on ways to
increase domestic use of coal and production of oil.</p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>In March
2001, a White House team used a single economic analysis by the Energy
Department to build a case that Mr. Bush quickly used to back out of his
campaign pledge to restrict power plant discharges of carbon dioxide, the main
heat-trapping gas linked to global warming. </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The
analysis, from December 2000, was based on a number of assumptions, including
one that no technological innovation would occur. The result showed that prompt
cuts in carbon dioxide from power plants would weaken the economy. </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Other
analyses, including some by other branches of the Department of Energy, drew
different conclusions but were ignored.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Advice
from climate experts at the Environmental Protection Agency was sought but also
ignored. A March 7 memorandum from agency experts to the White House team
recommended that the carbon dioxide pledge be kept, saying the Energy
Department study "was based on assumptions that do not apply" to Mr.
Bush's plan and "inflates the costs of achieving carbon dioxide
reductions." The memo was given to The New York Times by a former E.P.A.
official who says science was not adequately considered.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Nonetheless,
the White House team stuck to its course, drafting a memo on March 8 to John
Bridgeland, the president's domestic policy adviser, that used the energy study
to argue for abandoning the campaign promise.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>None of
the authors was a scientist. The team consisted of Cesar Conda, an adviser to
Vice President Dick Cheney and now a political consultant; Andrew Lundquist,
the White House energy policy director, who is now an energy lobbyist; Kyle E.
McSlarrow, the chairman of Dan Quayle's 2000 presidential campaign and now
deputy secretary of energy; Robert C. McNally Jr., an energy and economic
analyst who is now an investment banker; Karen Knutson, a deputy on energy
policy and a former Republican Senate aide; and Marcus Peacock, an analyst on
science and energy issues from the Office of Management and Budget. They
concluded that Mr. Bush could continue to say he believed that global warming
was occurring but make a case that "any specific policy proposals or
approaches aimed at addressing global warming must await further scientific
inquiry."</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>A copy of
the memo was recently given to The New York Times by a White House adviser at
the time who now disagrees with the administration's chosen policies.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The
Environmental Protection Agency tried one more time to argue that Mr. Bush
should not change course. <br>
In a section of a March 9 memo to the White House headed "Global warming
science is compelling," agency officials said: "The science is
strongest on the fact that carbon dioxide is contributing, and will continue to
contribute, to global climate change. The greatest scientific uncertainties
concern how fast the climate will change and what will be the regional impacts.
Even within these bands of uncertainty, however, it is clear that global
warming is an issue that must be addressed."</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>On March
13, Mr. Bush signed and sent a letter to four Republican senators who had
sought clarification of the administration's climate plans. In it, Mr. Bush
described the Energy Department study as "important new information that
warrants a re-evaluation, especially at a time of rising energy prices and a
serious energy shortage."</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>He said
reconsideration of the carbon dioxide curbs was particularly appropriate
"given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and
solutions to, global climate change."</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The
letter also reiterated his longstanding opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, the
climate treaty now moving toward enactment in almost all other industrialized
countries.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>In the
next months, the White House set up a series of briefings on climate science
and economics for the cabinet and also sought the advice of the National
Academy of Sciences. The experts convened by the academy reaffirmed the
scientific consensus that recent warming has human causes and that significant
risks lie ahead. But the administration's position on what to do has not
changed. </span></font></p>
<p><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-weight:bold'>Hidden Assumptions</span></font></b> <br>
A handful of experts who have worked on climate policy in the Bush and Clinton
administrations say that both tried to skew information to favor policies, but
that there were distinct differences.</p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Andrew G.
Keeler, who until June 2001 was on the president's Council of Economic Advisers
and has since returned to teaching at the University of Georgia, said the
Clinton administration had also played with economic calculations of the costs
of curbing carbon dioxide emissions, in its case to show that limiting
emissions would not be expensive.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>But it
made available all of the assumptions that went into its analysis, he said; by
contrast, the Bush administration drew contorted conclusions but never revealed
the details. </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"The
</span></font>Clinton administration got these lowest possible costs by taking
every assumption that would bias them down," he said. "But they were
very clear about what the assumptions were. Anybody who wanted to could wade
through them."</p>
<p><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-weight:bold'>Tilting the Discussion</span></font></b> <br>
Some of the loudest criticisms of the administration on climate science have
centered on changes to reports and other government documents dealing with the
causes and consequences of global warming. </p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Political
appointees have regularly revised news releases on climate from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, altering headlines and opening
paragraphs to play down the continuing global warming trend.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The
changes are often subtle, but they consistently shift the meaning of statements
away from a sense that things are growing warmer in unusual ways.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The
pattern has appeared in reports from other agencies as well. <br>
Several sets of drafts and final press releases from NOAA on temperature trends
were provided to The Times by government employees who said they were dismayed
by the practice.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>On </span></font>Aug. 14, 2003, a news release summarizing July temperature patterns began as a draft with
this headline: "NOAA reports record and near-record July heat in the West,
cooler than average in the East, global temperature much warmer than
average."</p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>When it
emerged from NOAA headquarters, it read: "NOAA reports cooler, wetter than
average in the East, hot in the West."</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Such
efforts have continued in recent weeks. Scientists at the Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, a leading research center studying climate, worked with public
affairs officials last month to finish a release on new studies explaining why </span></font>Antarctica
had experienced cooling while most of the rest of the world had warmed.</p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The
results, just published in a refereed scientific journal, showed that the
depletion of the ozone layer over </span></font>Antarctica had temporarily
shifted atmospheric conditions in a way that cooled the region, but that as the
layer heals in coming decades, Antarctica would quickly warm. </p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The
headline initially approved by the agency's public affairs office and the
scientists was "Cool Antarctica May Warm Rapidly This Century, Study
Finds."</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The
version that finally emerged on Oct. 6 after review by political appointees was
titled "Study Shows Potential for Antarctic Climate Change." </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>More
significant than such changes has been the scope and depth of involvement by
administration appointees in controlling information flowing through the
farthest reaches of government on issues that could undermine policies. </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Jeffrey
Ruch, who runs Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a network for
whistle-blowers who identify government actions that violate environmental laws
or rules, said the Bush administration had taken information control to a level
far beyond that of its predecessor. </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"The
</span></font>Clinton administration was less organized and systematic, with
lots of infighting, kind of like the old Will Rogers joke 'I belong to no
organized political party; I'm a Democrat,' '' Mr. Ruch said. </p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"This
group, for good or ill, is much more centralized," he added. "It's
very controlled in the sense that almost no decision, even personnel decisions,
can be made without clearance from the top. In the realm of science that
becomes problematic, because science isn't neat like that."</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Dr.
Marburger, the president's science adviser, defended such changes. <br>
"This administration clearly has an attitude about climate change and
climate science, and it's much more cautious than the previous
administration," Dr. Marburger said. "This administration also tries
to be consistent in its messages. It's an inevitable consequence that you're
going to get this kind of tuning up of language."</span></font></p>
<p><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-weight:bold'>Choosing Advisers</span></font></b> <br>
Another area where the issue of scientific distortion keeps surfacing is in the
composition of advisory panels. In a host of instances documented in news
reports and by groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, candidates have
been asked about their politics. In March 2003, the American Association for
the Advancement of Science criticized thosequeries, saying in a statement that
the practice "compromises the integrity of the process of receiving advice
and is inappropriate." Despite three years of charges that it is remaking
scientific and medical advisory panels to favor the goals of industry or social
conservatives, the White House has continued to ask some panel nominees not
only about their political views, but explicitly whether they support Mr. Bush.
</p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>One
recent candidate was Prof. Sharon L. Smith, an expert on Arctic marine ecology
at the </span></font>University of Miami. <br>
On March 12, she received a call from the White House. She had been nominated
to take a seat about to open up on the Arctic Research Commission, a panel of
presidential appointees that helps shape research on issues in the far north,
including the debate over oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. </p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The woman
calling from the White House office of presidential personnel complimented her
résumé, Dr. Smith recalled, then asked the first and - as it turned out - only
question: "Do you support the president?"</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"I
was taking notes," Dr. Smith recalled. "I'm thinking I've lost my
mind. I was in total shock. I'd never been asked that before."</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>She
responded she was not a fan of Mr. Bush's economic and foreign policies.
"That was the end of the interview," she said. "I was removed
from consideration instantly." </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>In
interviews, senior administration officials said that most advisory panels
reflected a broad array of opinions and backgrounds and that Mr. Bush had the
right at least to know where candidates stood on his policies. </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"The
people who end up on these panels tend to be pretty diverse and clearly don't
all support the president's policies," Dr. Marburger said. "I think
you'd have to say that the question is not a litmus-test question. It's
perfectly acceptable for the president to know if someone he's appointing to
one of his advisory committees supports his policies or not."</span></font></p>
<p><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-weight:bold'>Inevitable Tension</span></font></b> <br>
To some extent, the war between science and the administration is a culture
clash, both supporters and critics of Mr. Bush say. </p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"He
uses a Sharpie pen," said John L. Howard Jr., a former adviser to Mr. Bush
on the environment in both the White House and the </span></font>Texas
statehouse. "He's not a pencil with an eraser kind of guy."</p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>In the
campaign, Mr. Bush's team has portrayed this trait as an asset. His critics in
the sciences say it is a dangerous liability.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Dr.
Marburger argues that when scientific information is flowing through government
agencies, the executive branch has every right to sift for inconsistencies and
adjust the tone to suit its policies, as long as the result remains factual. </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>He said
the recent ferment, including the attacks from the Union of Concerned
Scientists, Democrats and environmental groups, all proved that the system
works and that objective scientific information ultimately comes to the
surface.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"I
think people overestimate the power of government to affect science," he
said. "Science has so many self-correcting aspects that I'm not really
worried about these things."</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>He
acknowledged that environmental and medical issues, in particular, would
continue to have a difficult time in the policy arena, because the science was
fundamentally more murky than in, say, physics or chemistry.</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"I'm
a physicist," Dr. Marburger said. "I know what you have to do to
design an experiment where you get an unambiguous result. There is nothing like
that in health and environment."</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The
situation is not likely to get better any time soon, say a host of experts, in
part because of the growing array of issues either underlaid by science, like
global warming, or created by science, like genetic engineering and cloning. </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"Since
the Sputnik era we have not seen science and technology so squarely in the
center of the radar screen for people in either the executive branch or
Congress," said Charles M. Vest, the president of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and a member of the President's Council of Advisers on
Science and Technology. "I think it's inevitable we're going to have
increasing conflicts and arguments about the role it plays in policy."</span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:navy'>ANALYSIS</span></font><br>
<br>
<b><font size=4 face=Arial><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:Arial;
font-weight:bold'>Scientific Integrity in Policymaking<br>
</span></font></b><b><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold'>An Investigation into the Bush
Administration's Misuse of Science</span></font></b> </p>
<p><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>The </span></font><font
size=2><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>U.S.</span></font><font size=2><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> government runs on vast amounts of information.
Researchers at the National Weather Service gather and analyze meteorological
data to know when to issue severe-weather advisories. Specialists at the
Federal Reserve Board collect and analyze economic data to determine when to
raise or lower interest rates. Experts at the Centers for Disease Control
examine bacteria and viral samples to guard against a large-scale outbreak of
disease. The American public relies on the accuracy of such governmental data
and upon the integrity of the researchers who gather and analyze it.<br>
<br>
However, at a time when one might expect the federal government to increasingly
rely on impartial researchers for the critical role they play in gathering and
analyzing specialized data, there are numerous indications that the opposite is
occurring. A growing number of scientists, policy makers, and technical specialists
both inside and outside the government allege that the Bush administration has
suppressed or distorted the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring
these results in line with administration policy. In addition, these experts
contend that irregularities in the appointment of scientific advisors and
advisory panels are threatening to upset the legally mandated balance of these
bodies.</span></font> </p>
<p><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>The
quantity and breadth of these charges warrant further examination, especially
given the stature of many of the individuals lodging them. Toward this end, the
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) undertook an investigation of many of the
allegations made in the mainstream media, in scientific journals, and in
overview reports issued from within the federal government and by
non-governmental organizations. To determine the validity of the allegations,
UCS reviewed the public record, obtained internal government documents, and
conducted interviews with many of the parties involved (including current and
former government officials).</span></font></p>
<p><u><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;color:blue'><<a
href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1322">http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1322</a>></span></font></u>
</p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p><i><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-style:italic'>This edition of</span></font><b><span style='font-weight:
bold'> </span></b></i><b><i><font size=2><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-weight:bold;font-style:italic'>Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An
Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science</span></font></i></b><i><font
size=2><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-style:italic'> is an update of the
UCS report of the same name released on February 18, 2004 and includes new
information UCS has received on several of the original incidents. The
conclusions reached and recommendations made in the report have not changed.
For a full detail of the changes in the report see Appendix C. To receive a
copy of the </span></font></i><i><font size=2><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-style:italic'>February 18, 2004</span></font></i><i><font size=2><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-style:italic'> edition, email rsi@ucsusa.org</span></font></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>