When ideology infects science, truth hurts

By Donald Kennedy

Sunday, Apr 18, 2004, Page 9

ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE

Americans, like citizens in countries throughout the world, have come to accept that politics plays an important role in the appointment of certain kinds of public officials. Few of us are surprised -- though some may be disappointed -- when a federal judgeship is awarded or a senior diplomat appointed because the candidate passes a litmus test of loyalty to some principle that is important to the president's or prime minister's party. But science, almost everyone agrees, is different, and here the US is beginning to stand as a cautionary example to the rest of the world.

Hiring and loyalty

Scientific appointments should rest on objective criteria of training, ability and performance. Clearly, it is legitimate to interrogate a future US secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) about his views on abortion. But it is entirely out of place when appointees to scientific advisory committees are subjected to tests of political loyalty. Similarly, membership of bodies that conduct peer review of scientific proposals -- a pro-cess that is fundamental to scientific progress -- surely ought to be free of all barriers to entry that are unrelated to professional qualifications.

Unfortunately, scientists in the US are running up against such barriers more and more often. During the past fall, the journal Science published several news stories related to the issue.

One the wholesale replacement of members of the advisory committee to the National Center for Environmental Health, a part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), without consulting the center's director. Similar cases involved the CDC's Advisory Committee on Lead Poisoning and Prevention, the Advisory Committee on National Human Research Protections and the Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing.

Vetting for views

The current epidemic of ideology, in which advisory committees are shut down and reassembled with new mem-bers and candidates are subjected to loyalty tests, seems old hat to some observers. Officials at the HHS call it "fairly standard practice."

Well, it isn't standard practice in the US -- or at least it wasn't. In any case, what's really worrying is not that the Bush administration examines candidates for compatibility with its "values." The most alarming development is how deep the ideological vetting now cuts, invading areas that once were immune to this kind of manipulation.

Indeed, perhaps the most telling case in the widening political epidemic was a membership re-shuffle of the study section at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health that evaluates grants for studying workplace injuries. Advisory committees might have been vulnerable to occasional stacking of this kind in the past. After all, they recommend the policies that politicians may or may not want to consider. But study sections?

In October 2002, Science published an editorial by David Michaels and a group of colleagues. Several were distinguished former public servants who had been involved with some of the committees in question, and they brought a valuable perspective to the issue, one based on their personal experiences.

Their was a story in itself, but what followed was even more interesting. It set off a volley of letters in which scientists told of similar experiences.

A nominee for the National Institutes of Health's Muscular Dystrophy Research Coordinating Committee told of being vetted by a White House staff member. After being asked about her views on various Bush administration policies -- none of them related to the work of the committee -- she was asked whether she supported the president's policy on embryonic stem cells.

Your vote, please?

Another letter writer, a distinguished professor of psychiatry and psychology, reported receiving a call from the White House about his nomination to serve on the National Council on Drug Abuse. The caller declared his intention to determine whether the professor "held any views that might be embarrassing to the president."

According to the professor, a series of questions followed, with the White House official keeping a running score. One example: "You're two for three; the president opposes needle exchange [for intravenous drug users] on moral grounds, regardless of the outcome." Then the exchange took an even more chilling turn. The official asked the nominee whether he had voted for President George W. Bush, and, on being informed that he had not, asked: "Why didn't you support the president?"

This is the stuff of dictatorship, not democracy. The purpose of scientific advisory committees is to provide balanced, thoughtful advice to the policy process. Nothing is gained -- and much is lost -- when a desired policy outcome is put first. This is why deciding which research projects to support has always been a matter for objective peer review, not politicians. In fact, the applicable statute for all this -- the Federal Advisory Committee Act -- specifically requires that committees be balanced and "not inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority."

HHS Tommy Thompson and the White House Personnel Office ought to set an example to the rest of the world. They can do so very easily: by following the law.

Donald Kennedy is professor of environmental science and a former president of Stanford University. He is editor in chief of the journal Science.

Copyright: Project Syndicate