AIP FYI#71: Amendment on Scientific Advisory Process Rejected

Two House members recently proposed an amendment to create an
independent commission to study charges that the Bush Administration
has politicized scientific advice. The amendment to H.R. 2432, the
Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act, introduced by Reps. Henry
Waxman (D-CA) and John Tierney (D-MA), was rejected by a vote of
201-226 on May 18. Most members voted along party lines, with one
Republican voting for the amendment and five Democrats voting
against it. Members’ votes on Roll Call Vote 187 can be found on
the Library of Congress web site, THOMAS, at
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll187.xml. As reported in FYI
#64, Waxman, the Ranking Minority Member of the Government Reform
Committee, was the initiator of a report that charges the
Administration with manipulating scientific advice and information
for ideological and political purposes. Selected excerpts from the
floor debate on this amendment follow:

HENRY WAXMAN (D-CA): “We as policymakers or the regulatory agencies
need good science, science that has not been interfered with by
politicians. That is why the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Tierney) and I are offering this amendment to establish an
independent commission to investigate whether science is being
politicized and to make recommendations to Congress to protect
scientific integrity. This amendment responds to the concerns of
the scientific community. Twenty Nobel Laureates, major scientific
organizations, and leading scientific and medical journals have
protested a pattern of political interference with science by the
Bush administration. This pattern has involved gagging scientists,
suppressing research, and rewriting reports to eliminate scientific
answers that conflict with the administration’s political or
ideological agenda. It has also involved misleading the public and
Congress on key scientific facts, manipulating performance measures
for ideologically favored programs, and stacking advisory
committees, scientific advisory committees stacked with people who
will come up with the right political answer.”

NICK SMITH (R-MI): “I would suggest this kind of partisan language
would not be appropriate in any legislation. I assume the goal of
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is not to politicize
science and research, yet I respectfully suggest that is what this
amendment does. And the comments of the gentleman on the floor were
sort of blasting the Bush administration for some of the things that
they have done…. This amendment requires that a commission be
created to study the politicization of science by the Bush
administration. What we all sort of agree is, politicizing this is
what we are doing with this amendment.”

SHERROD BROWN (D-OH): “We have an oversight role, and under our
watch, science is being subverted to promote political and
ideological goals…. This is a dangerous, dangerous precedent.
This did not happen with President Bush, Sr., it did not happen with
President Clinton, it did not happen with President Reagan, it did
not happen with Republican or Democratic Presidents the way it is
happening today under this very politicized, very partisan, very
ideologically driven White House…. I don’t think we have had this
kind of cynicism that we see today with respect to objective
scientific advice since I have been watching government, which is
quite a long time.”

PHIL GINGREY (R-GA): “What we are talking about is having rules and
regulations based on good science that makes sense…. The
amendment is purely a political attack on the Bush administration
and asserts that political considerations have undermined the
quality and use of science. Listen to what President Bush’s science
adviser, Dr. Marburger, recently stated, ‘The President believes
that policies should be made with the best and most complete
information possible and expects his administration to conduct its
business with integrity and in a way that fulfills that belief.’
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill and it is a bad amendment.”

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (D-TX): “It is true that the plural of
anecdote is not data. However, at some point a series of anecdotes
begins to look like a pattern. The pattern is disturbing and
threatens to undermine our ability to rely on scientific and
technical information as we weigh alternative policies. At a
minimum, the number of cases and the range of scientific issues they
encompass create the perception that the Federal science advisory
process has been undermined by politics. The perception alone is
damaging. Policymakers and the public must have confidence in
scientific information and scientific advice provided by experts.”

TOM DAVIS (R-VA): “The amendment is supposed to create an expert
commission to study the politicization of science and make
recommendations for how to protect science in the regulatory process
from political and ideological manipulation and interference. The
problem with a commission like this is it is designed to find a
problem and highlight it. Whether the problem is real or serious
the commission fails if it finds nothing at all. This is the kind
of unfair fishing expedition that can only harm and destroy public
faith in the Federal rulemaking process…. There is no question
that the Bush administration is surpassing previous administrations
in its commitment to good science…. Mr. Chairman, it does not
make sense to fund an unneeded commission with a predetermined
finding that will misrepresent the good work of this
administration.”

JOHN TIERNEY (D-MA): “I am always amazed to see how frightening it
is for our colleagues to be confronted with a nonpartisan study, and
that would be by a commission that was appointed by the President
and by members of that party and members of this party…. It is
our obligation, if the President is putting a twist onto different
regulations and either avoiding their implementation or manipulating
them and missing science altogether, our obligation is to make sure
this is set right; and a commission should look at it to make sure
that all regulations are either enforced or implemented based on
good, hard science and not ideology and politics, as many are
accusing the President of doing…. I would assume there are
members in the Republican Party who are sensible enough to want to
have a good analysis of this done, and want to put aside all of the
political shenanigans of this administration.”

DOUG OSE (R-CA): “If my colleagues look at the amendment, it refers
to a report put out by the minority staff entitled, ‘Politics and
Science in the Bush Administration.’ We have not had that report
vetted. It was issued by the minority staff. There has been no
input by the majority staff or review. I daresay that that would be
a very, very dangerous template to set for this Congress, because
who knows what other committees might adopt majority or minority
reports and then just jam them down the other side’s throat. I
would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and instead seek
to have it discussed under the purview of the Committee on
Science…. This may well be a very serious issue, but this is not
the vehicle where it should properly be discussed.”

Audrey T. Leath

Media and Government Relations Division

The American Institute of Physics

fyi@aip.org www.aip.org/gov

(301) 209-3094