GOVERNMENT & POLICY
ENSURING SOUND SCIENCE National Academies discuss politicization of science, barriers to retention of top experts BETTE HILEMAN, C&EN WASHINGTON
A
T T R A C T I N G AND R E T A I N I N G
high-quality scientists in government service has been a long-standing problem. And creating scientific advisory panels that are perceived as balanced and fair for government agencies has been problematic for decades. In mid-July the National Academies' Committee on Science, Education & Public Policy (COSEPUP) held an open meeting to discuss how to ensure that federal advisory committees are balanced and free from major conflicts of interest and how to create conditions that will attract and retain the best scientists in executive positions in government. Trie meeting was prompted in part because of the great deal of attention that the issue ofpolitical influence on advisory committee nominations has received recently Many articles have been published in both the general and scientific press over the past few months alleging that researchers have been rejected as federal advisory board members because they admitted they did not vote for President George W Bush or because they refused to answer questions re-
garding their political party affiliation. There has also been widespread reporting that scientists at the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) have been subjected to unusual constraints that hamper their ability to participate freely as advisers to international organizations. At the COSEPUP meeting, leaders from inside and outside the government made presentations. They provided insights as to why disputes over the impartiality and politicization of advisory committees can easily arise and offered advice on how to improve the appointment process. Some also commented on incentives and disincentives that now exist for scientists to assume executive positions in government. Robert Flaak, senior policy adviser at the General Services Administration (GSA), told the conference that in 2003 there were about 976 federal advisory committees with a total of 62,000 members. Of these committees, 216 were scientific or technical. He reminded attendees that "the Federal Advisory Committee Act {FACA} requires the committee memberships to be fairly balanced in terms of points of view"
Advisory committee members are appointed in two ways: as unpaid "special government employees," who provide advice on behalf of the government on the basis of their best judgment, and as "representatives," who are expected to represent the point of view of an industry or special-interest group. Special government employees must meet federal requirements pertaining to freedomfromconflict ofinterest by submitting detailed financial disclosures. Representatives are not required to file such disclosures. The current process offillingoutfinancialforms is difficult and time-consuming, Flaak said, and it should be streamlined. Christine Fishkin, an assistant director of natural resources and environment at the Government Accountability Office (formerly the General Accounting Office), discussed thefindingsof a GAO report on federal advisory committees published in April. GAO found that some departments and agencies—the Departments of Agriculture, of Energy, and of the Interior, in particular— "have a long-standing practice of appointing nearly all advisory committee members as representatives," Fishkin said. Because representatives submit no financial disclosures, allegations of conflicts ofinterest can easily arise, calling into question the independence of the committees and jeopardizing the credibility of their work, she said. For this reason, most members of scientific advisory panels should be appointed as special government employees, she added. EVEN THOUGH FACA requires that panels be balanced in terms of points of view and expertise, many agencies do not obtain enough background information on prospective committee members to determine whether panels are balanced, Fishkin said. "With the exception of {the Environmental Protection Agency}, most agencies do not look into background information," she said. GSA is developing guidelines that will provide agencies with direction on obtaining such information. "With clear guidance, we believe it unlikely agencies would ask" inappropriate questions, such as a person's political affiliation, Fishkin said. "Perceptions of federal advisory committees as politicized" can make their work less credible, she explained. Using only representatives on advisory
"It's clear that if this pattern of abuse continues, there will be an exodus of scientific talent from the federal government/' 18
C&EN
/ AUGUST
16,
2004
HTTP://WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
panels probably does not stem from "con fusion on the part of the agencies" about government policies but rather is a delib erate attempt to avoid the rigmarole in volved with requiringfinancialdisclosures, said Marilyn L. Glynn, acting director of the independent U.S. Office of Govern ment Ethics. However, many people do not realize that the ethics rules are some what relaxed for advisory committee mem bers, she explained. Minor conflicts of in terest, such as owning a small amount of stock in a company that could benefit from the decisions of an advisory panel, do not necessarily prevent a scientist from being
Flaak
potential members on a website and solic its public comment, Flaak said. Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scien tists, was one of nine speakers at the meet ing from outside the government. UCS has been critical of the Administration's prac tices on selecting advisory committee members. "There is mounting concern in the scientific community about the Bush Administration's suppression and distor tion of scientific analyses and its politicization of appointments to federal scien tific advisory panels," Meyer said. UCS has prepared two detailed reports
Meyer
Glynn
appointed to the committee, she said. If the expertise is needed, waivers can be giv en for a minimal interest in an affected company, Glynn said. One step EPAhas taken to improve bal ance on its advisory committees is to place notices in the Federal Register asking for nominations from the public. It then lists
this year, he said, in which it "documented numerous instances where scientists nom inated to advisory committees have been asked about their political views—even whether they voted for President Bush." These cases involve many departments and agencies. In addition, about 4,500 scientists have
signed a UCS statement entitled "Restor ing Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," Meyer said. These include 48 Nobel Lau reates, 62 National Medal of Science re cipients, and 129 members of the Nation al Academy ofSciences. The statement says, "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the Administration has often ma nipulated the process through which sci ence enters into its policies." Before 2001, Meyer maintains, direc tors of institutes and centers at the Na tional Institutes ofHealth nominated high ly distinguished scientists who they believed would be appropriate for their ad visory councils, and the nominees were routinely approved by the HHS secretary's office. But under the Bush Administration, HHS SecretaryTommy G Thompson's of fice has rejected many nominees. Meyer described one example. Gerald T. Keusch, until last December director of NIH's Fogarty International Center, rec ommended 26 scientists he considered to be highly qualified for his advisory council, andThompson's office rejected 19 ofthem, including a Nobel Laureate. The NIH ad visory councils, Meyer explained, deal al most exclusively with science, not policy, issues, recommending future directions for research for the institutes and centers and providing a second layer of peer review "From conversations with scientists who have recently left agencies, such as [the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention}, NIH, EPA, and Interior... it's clear that if this pattern of abuse continues, there will be an exodus of scientific talent from the
ONICHEM Specialized in
Oraano-Functional Silanes Epoxy/Glycidoxy Silanes ν • Methacryloxy Silanes
• Amino Silanes • Chloro Silanes
Glyoxal40% ;; Cyanoacrylate Adhesives (Ethyl, Butyl, Oityl ester) p-Menthance (special epoxy resins hardener) Also aslk us for other specialty chemicals
Contact us: Onichem Specialities
[email protected] Consultant in Europe: Mr. Hugh Anderson hugh@onic^i^om ONICHEM, an ISO90Ô1 / ISO 140() 1 Qualified Company of Specialty Chemicals \L·^ ^4
TGRNET Newsletter Survey: 74% Plan To Increase Business With China* (*TGR Newsletter: Holiday 2003) Looking for a Chinese Partner ? :J;0e;t:':::slarÎ:ëÉlwi ONICHEM v
m^^^^^W^i^€^Wë,
WBKMOÊÊËÊm
HTTP://WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
uram C & E N /
AUGUST
1-6, 2 0 0 4
19
GOVERNMENT & POLICY federal government," Meyer cautioned. He urged COSEPUP to do something about these problems. "First and foremost, you should acknowledge the depth of concern in the scientific community about
these abuses and highlight the barrier this is creating to recruitment and retention of top scientific talent, libu should make some specific recommendations for reforms that, while not guaranteeing these abuses
will never happen in the future, will make them less likely to occur," he said. "The discussion must be broader" than the political vetting of advisory board nominees, said David M. Michaels, research
ROADBLOCKS
HHS Scientists Face Constraints In Interactions With International Organizations
O
ne area of serious concern is policy changes by the Department of Health & Human Services that restrict the activities of its scientists. Some of the HHS directives—which impact researchers working at the National Institutes of Health, the Food & Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)—restrict travel, limit foreign conference participation, and regulate advisory panel membership. For example, a June 28 memo from Sharon Hrynkow, acting director of NIH's Fogarty International Center, says NIH researchers must submit notifications for foreign travel if they are to consult with scientists or attend meetings at any international organization, even in nearby Washington, D.C. These so-called multilateral entities include the World Health Organization (WHO), the Pan American Health Organization, other United Nations entities, and the World Bank. Previously, no foreign travel authorization was required for travel from, for example, NIH in Bethesda, Md., to the World Bank in downtown Washington. The memo requires that this notification of foreign travel be submitted to the HHS Office of Global Health Affairs at least 30 days before the travel takes place. HHS has also moved to severely restrict the number of scientists who are allowed to attend foreign meetings. If a manager wishes to send more than 20 people to a meeting out of the country, he or she must justify to the Global Affairs Office why it is necessary to send so many. But the greatest concern is over a memo issued in April by William R. (Bill) Steiger, HHS special assistant to the secretary for international affairs. Steiger, a political appointee with no scientific training, stipulates that HHS scientists speaking to colleagues in international organizations must say nothing that contradicts official U.S. policies. U.S. regulation requires "HHS experts to serve as representatives of the U.S. government at all times
20
C&EN
/ AUGUST
1 6,
2004
and advocate U.S. government policies," the notice says. "The employee is ONLY to represent the positions of the department and the U.S. government," it adds. This new prohibition directly contradicts a WHO regulation that says advisory panel members "shall act as international experts serving the organization exclusively; in that capacity, they may not request or receive instructions from any government." In addition, Steiger's memo stipulates that WHO must submit all requests for U.S. scientists to serve on its advisory committees to the HHS Office of Global Health Affairs. WHO, the notice says, may no longer request specific scientists but must identify the "specific skill sets" needed for the positions, and HHS will decide which experts are the most appropriate. "When a multilateral organization invites a specific HHS official to participate in one of its events, that expert might not be fully aware of the activities and priorities of other HHS agencies," the memo explains. Before this change in policy, WHO simply contacted NIH, FDA, and CDC experts directly and invited them to serve on advisory committees. After WHO officials objected to this prohibition against requesting specific scientists, a compromise was reached. WHO is now permitted to request a specific expert, but it must still submit the request to the Global Health Affairs Office. And HHS reserves the right to suggest an alternative. Only a few other countries, including Russia and China, prohibit WHO from contacting their scientists directly when inviting them to serve on advisory panels. HHS spokesman William Pierce maintains there is no conflict between WHO and HHS. "The policy is in place. WHO has accepted it. The controversy is only that some of our internal scientists are whining a bit," he tells C&EN. With regard to WHO's submitting requests to the Global Health Affairs Office for advisory panel members and for foreign travel notifications for domestic travel, he says: "All we
are asking for is accountability. We need to know who is going to these meetings." On July 20, Paul W. Kinkade, president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, and Jordan J. Cohen, president of the Association of American Medical Colleges, wrote a letter to Steiger complaining that the policies regarding WHO scientific advisory panels are "very troubling." "We understand that when federal scientists are asked to participate as official representatives of the U.S government in the articulation of government policy, those scientists are expected to conform to applicable federal policy," Kinkade and Cohen write. "However, when they are invited to scientific meetings to share their unique scientific and technical expertise/whether as official representatives of the government or not, and whether here or abroad, the circumstances are entirely different," they add. Scientists need to be able to interact with their peers freely, "in an environment free of political constraint or distortion," they explain. "Never in our own long years of service on federal scientific advisory bodies [have] we encountered an instance in which we were informed that our scientific opinions... [must] conform to particular policies of the U.S. government." Gerald T. Keusch, who directed the Fogarty International Center from 1998 until last December, says these new policies have prompted discontent and serious concern among NIH scientists. A number of NIH researchers have told him they want to leave the agency, he says. Keusch is now associate dean at Boston University's School of Public Health. The HHS directives show that "some political appointees respect neither the integrity nor the independence of scientists in their agencies," says David M. Michaels, research professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health & Health Services. Senior career leaders in HHS are fleeing federal service, Michaels says.
HTTP://WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
professor at the George Washington Uni versity School of Public Health & Health Services, at the meeting. "Political vetting and manipulation of science and scientists within the agencies are perhaps more dis turbing than the examples of litmus tests for advisory committee appointees," he said. He noted that federal scientists work-
Michaels
Waxman
ing for H H S now must be cleared by Sec retary Thompson's office before they are allowed to serve as technical advisers to any international body and must submit notifications of foreign travel if they want to travel to any international organization, even those in downtown Washington, D.C. This is the first Administration that has instituted such requirements, he explained. "It is not an exaggeration to say that the U.S. science agencies are facing a crisis," Michaels said. Senior leaders at many of them are leaving the government, he said. PRESENTATIONS by political representa tives at the meeting showed that resolving the issue will be hard. Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Cali£) andVernonJ. Ehlers (Jt-Mich.) pre sented diametrically opposed views about whether advisory panel members should be asked to disclose their political views. W h e n interviewing scientists for exec utive positions and for advisory commit tees, it is appropriate to ask the candidates' party affiliation and for whom they voted, Ehlers, a nuclear physicist, said. "Scientists need to understand the political process. I don't think scientists should consider themselves a privileged class—that poli tics is for everyone else and not for them," he explained. "Scientists in executive po sitions need to be in tune with the Presi dent's philosophy But that does not mean that the President should appoint only those in his own party" he said. Waxman agreed that "if the President is making an appointment to apolicy-making position, the candidate should be in tune with the President's philosophy But for sci HTTP://WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
entific advisory committees," he said, "the situation is different. I don't know ofany in stance during a Democratic Administra tion of a scientist being rejected as a can didate for an advisory committee for being ofthe opposite party... Ifthe best scientists see the government doing some kind of lit mus test, they will likely say, Ί don't want
Ehlers to be part of the process,' " he contended. The White House is trying to stack pan els with scientists who agree with it, Waxman claimed. "On issue after issue, this Ad ministration seems to start with the policies it is planning to pursue, and then seek advice that justifies apredetermined choice. Rather than scientific experts pointing the way to good policy politics appears to be dictating the choice of experts and what they say It risks the faith ofthe American people in the ability of science to point the way to solu tions," he explained. COSEPUP will be preparing a report from this conference that is not expected to be released until shortly after the Novem ber election. This is the third time the acad emies' panelhas considered the problems of scientists in government service. The first two reports were written in 1992 and 2000 and focused on the problem ofretaininggovernment scientists. Many of the recom mendations COSEPUP made in those re ports have not yet been implemented. But the advisory panel flap is not a new problem either. Paul R. Portney president of Resources for the Future, tells C&EN that ever since the Carter Administration, "there have been questions raised about the composition of peer review panels. So this is not a new debate by any means." He believes that in some cases, it is ap propriate to inquire about the political affiliation of a candidate for a scientific advisory panel. "If a panel is dealing with a science policy issue, I can understand you would want a balance of political per spectives on an ideal panel," Portney ex plains. "In this case, asking about a can
didate's political party might be germane." But if a panel is dealing with a purely technical issue, such as toxicological tests or atmospheric chemistry study design, "it seems to be irrelevant to ask for whom the person voted," Portney says. To provide one way of ensuring that the scientific advice given to Congress is in dependent and shielded from charges of politicization, a bipartisan group of repre sentatives led by Rush Holt (D-NJ.) in troduced a bill inJune that would create a new congressional science advisory body The new organization would be similar to the Office of Technology Assessment, which was eliminated in 1995, but would be overseen by GAO. The new body would be called the Cen ter for Scientific & Technical Assessment, Holt says. It "would be a bipartisan resource providing Congress with highly respected, impartial analysis and assessment of scien tific and technical issues," he explains. Al though Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (RN . Y.), chairman of the House Science Committee, has expressed support for the bill, he does not plan to hold hearings on it this year. •
c
CHEMALONG The Right People, The Right Chemistry
N^NH2
ν
Brv
ο ^
CH2OH
S CBZ
CI NH.2 NM
CO
(HO)2(0)P
