THE RELIGIOUS CONSULTATION
on population, reproductive health & ethics

Philadelphia Daily News (USA), October 11, 2004

EDITORIAL: Reasons to Elect Kerry -- Ideology vs. Science

Scientists, who examine evidence and seek out patterns for a living, have spotted a disturbing trend in the Bush administration.

In February, more than 60 prominent scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, accused the Bush administration of packing advisory panels with ideological appointments, censoring reports, and gagging experts. By summer, the number of worried researchers had grown to 5,000.

They're alarmed by neutered Web sites, altered and ignored studies, advisory panels relieved of their best members, and career public servants fleeing federal agencies.

Americans need to trust scientific information coming from its government.

They need to know that after a terrorist attack or hazardous spill, it's safe to go back to their homes. That the best prescription drugs are on the market. That Congress has full information before making decisions. That appointments are based on qualifications, not ideology.

With the Bush administration in office, Americans don't have those assurances.

Democratic Sen. John Kerry has pledged that as president, he'll restore integrity to science and let facts guide decision-making. That's the approach followed by previous presidents, regardless of party.

President George H.W. Bush said in 1990: "Now more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance."

His son hasn't followed that advice. George W. Bush's actions have invaded areas "once immune to this kind of manipulation," said Science, one of a half-dozen professional journals to decry the Bush administration's disdain for science.

In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House censored Environmental Protection Agency safety precautions about returning to Manhattan. With anxiety about terrorism running high, officials said they didn't want to alarm people about potential air pollutants and cancer-causing asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

So people went back to their homes, offices and schools. Last month, the congressional watchdog, the Government Accountability Office, reported that thousands of people, as well as the first responders and cleanup crew, were exposed to a dangerous mixture of dust, debris, smoke and chemicals. Respiratory illnesses, including a syndrome called WTC cough, already have appeared. Possible long-term health effects, such as lung cancer, may not develop for decades.

People deserved a complete risk assessment from the start.

Last spring, an acting director at the Food and Drug Administration overruled the advice of the agency's staff and two independent scientific advisory panels to deny women over-the-counter access to emergency contraceptive pills. He offered no evidence to contradict the findings that it would be safe to sell the drug here, as it is in 33 other countries.

In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency withheld information from Congress on air pollution legislation, because the data weakened the case for the President's competing proposal. Several senators, including Tom Carper (D., Del.), requested an analysis of their plan to regulate pollution from coal-fired power plants, but it outperformed the President's "Clear Skies" Initiative, touted on the EPA's Web site. The information was suppressed until a study was leaked to the press.

While all administrations surround themselves with experts who share their views, the Bush administration's ideological appointments have gone deeper into the bureaucracy and strayed further from the scientific mainstream.

A 2002 nominee to a lead poisoning panel, for example, disputed the long-established link between lead poisoning and learning disabilities. For a women's reproductive health drug advisory panel, Bush appointed an antiabortion activist who advised women to read the Bible to relieve premenstrual symptoms.

One of the most alarming shifts came in March when two members of the President's Council on Bioethics who often voiced minority views on stem-cell research were abruptly dismissed.

These kinds of actions defy the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that panels be "fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented" and that advice "not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest."

President Bush claims he supports "sound science," but repeatedly embraces ideas that only sound like science. At polls next month, voters shouldn't ignore the evidence the way the Bush administration has.

<< Philadelphia Daily News -- 10/11/04 >>