Living in Bosnia-Herzegovina
Environmental Case Study
What Is Sound Science?
Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display.
1
Science is becoming a battleground. Once respected as rational and objective, scientists are
increasingly coming under attack by those who want to promote a particular ideology or protect their own
special interests. Studies that conflict with partisan agendas or corporate profits are dismissed as “junk
science.” More and more politicians demand “sound science” to be used in policy making. But what
constitutes sound science? With no accepted definition among scientists, the term often merely means
studies validating a particular commercial or ideological perspective.
Thousands of career scientists work for state and federal agencies. We depend on their research
to provide information on everything from environmental quality to public health and safety. In addition,
the government relies on hundreds of voluntary scientific advisory committees to provide expert
ecommendations on scientific policy as well as to peer review applications for funding of proposed
esearch programs. There is increasing concern that these advisory panels are being packed with people
who will provide those in power with what they want to hear. In addition, federal employees are pressured
to modify their findings to suit political agendas or corporate interests. Scientists who speak out on
important public issues often are subjected to reprisals such as demotions or withdrawal of research
funding.
While politicians have probably always tried to shape studies to support their own purposes, there
is growing alarm about widespread political interference in science in recent years. An unprecedented
expression of this concern occu
ed in 2004 when the Union of Concerned Scientists released a 46-page
eport accusing the Bush administration of misusing and distorting science to serve political ends. The
eport was endorsed by more than 60 prominent American scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and
top science advisors to three previous Republican presidents.
Among the charges in this report are that administration officials:
• Ordered extensive changes to a section on global warming in the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s 2003 Report on the Environment. Eventually the entire section was deleted and the
eport said nothing about climate change.
• Removed public health experts from a lead-paint advisory committee and replaced them with
esearchers with close ties to the lead industry.
• Suppressed a Department of Agriculture microbiologist’s findings that infectious bacteria are
eleased in air-borne effluents from large hog farms.
• Ordered fisheries biologists to stop studies showing that agricultural water withdrawals from
California’s Klamath River threaten endangered salmon populations.
• Supported revisions to the Endangered Species Act to greatly constrain scientific input into the
process of identifying endangered species and critical habitats for their protection.
• Replaced a fact sheet on proper condom use prepared by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention with a warning emphasizing condom failure.
• Fired two members of the Council on Bioethics—a highly regarded em
yologist and a moral
philosopher—who favored research on human stem cells, and replaced them with individuals
more ideologically aligned with the administration’s conservative agenda.
• Instituted “peer review” requirements for any science used in policy formation that exclude
everyone who works for a federal agency, has received federal funding for research, or has ever
written anything about the issue being considered. This means that “peer” review can be done
only by industry representatives or those with no previous experience on the topic.
In response, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy chief John Ma
urger
dismissed the scientists' complaints as partisan sniping in its own right. Previous administrations have
Environmental Case Study
What Is Sound Science?
Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display.
2
packed panels and filled government positions with people who favor environmental protection, the
president’s supporters contend. Cu
ent policies merely restore balance, they claim.
What do you think, using the principles of science presented in the first chapter in this book, what
characteristics would you look for in judging the validity of scientific data or the impartiality of scientific
experts? We want public policy to be informed by scientific research, but how can scientists participate in
the public debates while also maintaining objectivity and academic freedom? What safeguards could we
install to insure that researchers can work without pressure to conform to political agendas?
For further information, see:
Paskus, Laura. 2003. “Sound science goes sour.” High Country News 35 (12):
Kennedy, D, 2001. "An Unfortunate U-turn on Ca
on." (editorial) Science, Vol. 291, March 30, 2001 p.
2515.