- Under the guise of promoting sound science, the Bush
administration is advancing a policy that could make it more difficult
for federal agencies to protect health and the environment, U.S. scientists
say.
-
- A White House Office of Management and Budget, or OMB,
bulletin (PDF) drafted in August 2003 would allow the government to hand-pick
scientists to second-guess scientific research, opponents say. The text
of the bulletin says its purpose would be to ensure that all research affecting
federal regulations, such as environmental or health advisories, would
be thoroughly peer reviewed by unbiased researchers.
-
- But scientists feel the government is commandeering a
term that is near and dear to their hearts.
-
- Peer review is the backbone of all serious science. It's
a process by which top experts in a given field examine research for flaws,
and often send it back to researchers for more work before it's disseminated
to the public. But scientists say the White House version of peer review
would allow the government to stack review committees in favor of the government
and industry.
-
- "It wouldn't be peer review as we're used to,"
said William Schlesinger, president of the Ecological Society of America,
which represents 8,000 scientists in academia, government and industry.
-
- The OMB bulletin would require that peer reviewers be
"independent of the agency" involved when it comes to "significant
regulatory information." Experts receiving funding from the agency
involved, who have performed multiple peer reviews for that agency in recent
years or just one review on the same topic, would be eliminated as potential
reviewers.
-
- That would eliminate the top experts in a given field,
scientists said in letters responding to the bulletin.
-
-
- "Anyone really good has done some science and made
a conclusion," Schlesinger said. "If you eliminate those people,
probably the researchers did multiple reviews because they were recognized
as being good at it. (Also,) anybody any good on an issue is always looking
for research funding."
-
- Many also complain that the bulletin does not address
ways to combat conflict of interest when it comes to researchers working
in the private sector.
-
- Opponents of the bulletin also said the definition of
"significant" or "especially significant" regulatory
information was so broad that it could lead to an unmanageable number of
federally mandated peer reviews.
-
- The OMB did not return repeated phone calls, and it's
unclear when the OMB will advance the bulletin or if it will be revised.
-
- Five congressmen and members of the Committee on Science
wrote a response to the bulletin saying items as disparate as Alan Greenspan's
decisions on interest rates, Veterans Affairs drug prices and weather warnings
could fall under this rule and require peer review.
-
- "When the National Weather Service predicts a major
storm, it has immediate implications for businesses and governments in
affected areas," they wrote (PDF). "It would appear completely
unworkable, however, to obtain peer review of this information on a regular
basis."
-
- The peer-review proposal could dangerously slow down
the process of warning the public about health dangers, said Winifred DePalma,
regulatory affairs counsel for Public Citizen.
-
- "This is explicitly taking control over when the
public health and environmental agencies can make an announcement to the
public," DePalma said. "You would have to go through peer review
before disseminating that information to the public unless peer review
is waived."
-
- Respondents to the bulletin are divided between industry
and scientific or environmental groups. For example, the Gas Appliance
Manufacturers Association and the Industrial Minerals Association favor
the proposal. The American Academy for the Advancement of Science, the
National Academy of Sciences and the Natural Resources Defense Council
oppose it.
-
- Opponents also say the measure is trying to fix something
that's not broken.
-
- "There's nothing wrong with the system," said
Georges Benjamin, president of the American Public Health Association.
"People might not like the way the good science comes out, so they
want to look for an opposition to second-guess it. I don't know what OMB's
motives are, but I think they've got a solution looking for a problem."
-
- "It is really amazing that OMB has not pointed out
a single instance of bad rule-making or decision-making based on (scientific)
information," DePalma said.
-
- © Copyright 2004, Lycos, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
-
- http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62119,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
|
