Stacking the Deck Against Science

MikeLastort2 · Feb 9, 2004

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.
Click to expand...

Rest of article here.

The way this adminstration politicizes science is truly amazing.

Matt in the Hat · Feb 9, 2004

I'll be straight. I can't say I see a problem here.

bungadiri · Feb 9, 2004

It's not clear to me (because that bulletin was in Gov-speak and therefore pretty impenetrable), but my best guess is that the concern derives from this section of the bulletin:

Selection of Peer Reviewers: Peer reviewers shall be selected primarily on the basis of necessary scientific and technical expertise. When multiple disciplines are required, the selected reviewers should include as broad a range of expertise as is necessary. When selecting reviewers from the pool of qualified external experts, the agency sponsoring the review shall strive to appoint experts who, in addition to possessing the necessary scientific and technical expertise, are independent of the agency, do not possess real or perceived conflicts of interest, and are capable of approaching the subject matter in an open-minded and unbiased manner. Factors relevant to whether an individual satisfies these criteria include whether the individual: (i) has any financial interests in the matter at issue; (ii) has, in recent years, advocated a position on the specific matter at issue; (iii) is currently receiving or seeking substantial funding from the agency through a contract or research grant (either directly or indirectly through another entity, such as a university); or (iv) has conducted multiple peer reviews for the same agency in recent years, or has conducted a peer review for the same agency on the same specific matter in recent years. If it is necessary to select a reviewer who is or appears to be biased in order to obtain a panel with appropriate expertise, the agency shall ensure that another reviewer with a contrary bias is appointed to balance the panel.
Click to expand...

While requiring the agency to select reviewers with x, y, and z qualifications (all which seem to be perfectly fine qualifications, by the way) it doesn't seem to provide any process for ensuring this happens in a verifiable way. Thus (if I read this right) it relies on the competence, good will, and disinterest of the agency seeking to get its policies vetted to choose to be among those who will do the vetting people who might very well rip their policies to shreds. Sure, it could happen.

It also specifically excludes some categories that would contain many of the most experienced, heaviest hitters and most impervious to political pressure.

Anyway, there's little wrong with peer review (relatively speaking) and a lot right about it, if properly implemented. The trouble with this version is there seems to be a loophole that will allow agencies to acquire for their policies the veneer of scientific validity without the substance, should that be what they want.