January 2005

Political Science

The statue of Albert Einstein outside the National Academy of Science on Constitution Avenue is inscribed with his words: “The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.” These words in stone are mocked daily by the inhabitant of a house just a few blocks away on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Much has been written about how the Bush administration is politicizing science. But in our democracy, taxpayer-supported science is inherently political. The Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administrations emphasized support for space science and science education during the Cold War. The Clinton administration endorsed the Human Genome Project. Stem cell policy and a missile defense system are priorities that reflect the political agenda of the party in power even though they run counter to prevailing scientific consensus.

Public funding of scientific research is not permanently endowed but rather reflects referenda that take place on a two-year congressional cycle. Scientists routinely invite politics into their calling when, through their universities, they ask their congressional representatives to override study section scores or seek earmarked funding to establish research centers outside the peer-review system. While the administration's efforts to limit research on sex and stem cells, and to influence membership in study sections, subvert the established approach to priority-setting, they do not, in the short term, fundamentally undermine the scientific enterprise.

The current outrage is understandable but misses the real threat to science — the administration's subtle yet deliberate redefinition of accepted principles of what constitutes good evidence to guide policy development. For example, the Data Quality Act, signed into law as part of the 2000 omnibus spending bill, gives the Office of Management and Budget license to arbitrarily vary the quality standards for evidence to alter existing regulations. During the current administration, it has been used by industry and conservative think tanks to challenge health and safety warnings about smokeless tobacco, sugar, dietary salt, fertilizer and asbestos; findings about climate change; and regulations about endangered species.

How can we regain the standing of science and protect its role in providing unbiased data to inform policy?

First, scientists must be far more vigilant about the end uses of research, not just safeguarding the immediate business of its production. Second, scientists must protect against real and apparent conflicts of interest, including participating in self-serving political advocacy. Third, scientists must transcend disciplinary and institutional interests to defend the standards of evidence used in decision-making.

There is no reason to believe that the behavior of the Bush administration is going to change in the next four years. It is therefore critical that scientists organize, choose their battles wisely and guard against self-serving complicity in undermining objectivity.

PDF version