Politics versus Science (6/5/2007)

Should political party hacks be allowed to manipulate scientific research to suit their agendas? Here’s a story of two countries where the hacks are doing just that.

Russia.  In a recent Washington Post article, “Russia Seeks More Control At Academy of Sciences,” Peter Finn describes how the Academy’s historic autonomy and scientific freedom are threatened.  Academy members are scientists and academics who self govern.  They have not been subservient to the government and, in fact, defied Soviet demands in 1980 to expel dissident physicist Andrei Sakharov.  Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government now wants to require: first that the science academy president, currently elected by its members, be approved by Russia’s president; second that supervisory committees, in which government appointees would hold a 2 to 1 majority, would oversee academy decisions; and third that a new board of political appointees determine projects and funding.  Sergey Rogov, director of the academy’s U.S. and Canadian Studies, said:  “In this scheme, academic work becomes subservient to government.  The entire infrastructure of research will be destroyed.”

Here in the U.S., President Bush has issued an executive order similar to Putin’s power grab. Typically, our federal agencies issue regulations under the authority granted to them by law.  Now each agency must have a policy office run by a political appointee to supervise development of rules and documents. Another layer of White House overseers must review “any significant guidance documents” before they are issued.  Congressman Henry Waxman aptly says, “The executive order allows the political staff at the White House to dictate decisions on health and safety issues, even if the government’s own impartial experts disagree.  This is a terrible way to govern, but great news for special interests.”

Indeed, reports have been rigged for special interests.  For example, Interior Department’s Julie MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks, admitted she often reshaped her agency’s scientific reports to benefit private landowners. MacDonald, with no background in the field she oversaw, finally was forced to resign. The Environmental Protection Agency rejected its own scientists’ and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council’s recommendations to reduce airborne soot.  Why? The American Petroleum Institute heavily influences the EPA. A congressional committee found that White House official Philip Cooney, a former oil industry lobbyist, edited government climate reports to deny global warming.  When Cooney left, Exxon Mobil hired him.  

Special interests undermine independent scientists and impartial research.  Rick Piltz testified in congress that he resigned in protest from the federal Climate Change Science Program because the administration impedes the public’s understanding of climate science.  His periodic assessments of climate research vanished.  The Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project report that it’s common for scientists to be pressured to eliminate references to climate change and for their work to be altered to misrepresent their findings. A New York Times editorial calls it “muzzling those pesky scientists.”

Remember in 2001 when Russian President Putin visited with Bush at his Crawford ranch, where only friends are invited.  After Putin’s visit, Bush said  "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul...”   Bush and Putin were called kindred spirits.  Indeed they are.

- Judith Kohler

Commentaries Home