EPA’s First Science Advisor FOCUSES on the Basics C AT H E R I N E M . C O O N E Y
In two years on the job, Paul Gilman has earned widespread respect for promoting the
DAVID HANSON
agency’s science.
aul Gilman, the U.S. EPA’s chief science advisor, sat down with Congressional budget staff in January and asked why they reduced the budget for certain research programs that had recently benefited from increased funding. For example, in 2001 Congress approved a large increase—to $5 million—for a general research management account that included funds for updating the widely used Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) toxicological database. But the funding Congress approved for the same program in fiscal year 2004 (FY ’04) was $4.2 million less than the $11.4 million EPA had requested. “When you did that reduction, were you saying to us, Don’t… reform IRIS?” Gilman asked. The staff’s response was simple: Funding for domestic programs, including environmental research, will remain flat across the entire government. Gilman will have to shift funds this year from other priorities if he wants to continue with significant IRIS reforms, the staffers told him.
P
© 2004 American Chemical Society
MAY 15, 2004 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 181A
This meeting with Congressional budget staffers exemplifies what many scientists say is Gilman’s hands-on approach and the challenges he faces in his job. For Gilman wears two hats at EPA: He is the agency’s first Science Advisor for the Administrator, charged with ensuring that the best science available is integrated into EPA’s policies and decisions. He is also the assistant administrator of the Office of Research and Development (ORD), which is considered the science arm of EPA. Gilman comes to his job with unique qualifications. Before President Bush asked him to head ORD, Gilman directed the policy planning program at Celera Genomics in Maryland—a bioinformation and drug discovery company known for having played a major role in decoding the human genome. He also
the post, EPA officials announced the creation of the Science Advisor position. In the past two years, he has earned the respect of scientists working inside and outside the agency, of academics, and of lobbyists—a remarkable consensus, especially for someone working in an administration that has been accused of highlighting only the science that supports its policies. Gilman met with ES&T at the beginning of the year to discuss his accomplishments and vision for EPA’s science in a time of limited funding.
STEPHEN DELANEY, U.S. EPA
Working with a tight budget
Promoting sustainability is one goal of Gilman’s, who is shown here during the launch of a student design competition aimed at funding projects that benefit people, prosperity, and the planet.
led the life sciences and agriculture divisions at the National Research Council; worked as an associate director in the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB); and served for 13 years in several senate staff positions, including chief of staff for Sen. Pete Domenici (R–NM). Congress approved Gilman’s appointment in the spring of 2002; shortly after Gilman was sworn into 182A ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / MAY 15, 2004
Bush proposed $689.1 million for EPA’s research programs in the upcoming fiscal year (FY ’05), which is a 6% cut from what the president sought last year and is 12% below the $782 million Congress appropriated for FY ’04, which began in October. The biggest cuts to research would be seen in EPA’s extramural programs, particularly those that fund grants to universities. These cuts come even as the overall federal research and development budget has steadily increased under President Bush’s watch, analysts say. It’s true that EPA’s share of the federal environmental sciences budget is slim; most of the research is spread across agencies with different missions, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Science advocates, including those working on Capitol Hill, say the funding for science and research at EPA and across the government is too low. “I think it is a sad state of affairs when an administration has placed so much emphasis on the state of science in environmental regulation, then doesn’t turn around and make the investment to provide scientifically informed regulation,” says Granger Morgan, professor and head of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. “I understand that we are in a very tight fiscal situation,” says Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R–NY), chair of the House Science Committee. “But we just have to find a way to do better.” Gilman appears to take the budget cuts in stride. “This happens almost every year,” he admits. “We wind up with reductions from our proposed budget in millions of dollars.” Gilman says he will stretch the dollars he does get from Congress. “We will continue to reallocate and try and keep moving these things forward.” Gilman’s answers put the best face on what many others say is a difficult situation. He has earned high praise for his energy, expertise, and intelligence. And he has been complimented for reaching outside the agency to highlight the science that EPA scientists are conducting. Carol Henry, vice president for long-range research programs for the industry group American Chemistry Council (ACC), says that under Gilman, ORD has begun operating in a more open way. “I think they are talking to a lot of people,” she says. “It takes a lot of effort, because in some ways it is easier for EPA to talk to itself.” She calls the EPA’s Annual Science
Forum, held each spring for the past three years, “a monumental event”. Kicked off in 2002, the forum is held in Washington, D.C., and is open to the public. The forum highlights EPA’s science and illustrates its effect on agency decisions. EPA scientists discuss their work with each other, staff members who write regulations, and lobbyists who track rules. “Having the research investigators available to talk in public about what they are doing and why… gives a different slice of information to policy makers, the media, and Congress,” Henry says. “It helped us to help our members realize that we need a science meeting of our own,” she adds.
A politically savvy scientist Several researchers working in ORD say that Gilman’s efforts to highlight their work is succeeding. In the past, ORD scientists have earned little recognition for their work from EPA’s program offices, which write the rules that end up in the Federal Register, staffers say. “In years past, we presented the science, and there was a discussion, and then the discussion about the regulation began without any reference to the science that we had just reviewed,” says Rebecca Calderon, acting director of ORD’s human testing program in EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory in North Carolina. With Gilman in place, at least the perception of what they do has changed, says Calderon. She believes that now, many scientists are free to debate with the program staff about scientific findings. “One thing he has been particularly good at is bridging this gap and asking what the role [is] of science in the policy.” He has huge credibility with other agencies and outside groups, notes another long-term ORD scientist. Gilman appears to understand how the government’s regulatory machine works. He also has studied EPA’s regulatory process and knows whom to call when it’s time to insert agency science into a debate, the scientist says. And in many ways, as science advisor, Gilman “has helped the scientists realize that we do have a regulatory application,” says Annie Jarabek, a health risk assessor in EPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment. One of Gilman’s top messages to ORD staff is that he will communicate to those outside the agency that the government, including EPA, does a lot of good science, Jarabek says. The annual EPA Science Forum has helped boost ORD staff morale, she adds. Scientists must submit their work before a panel for display at the forum; if chosen, they travel to Washington, D.C., to present their work to other scientists and the public. “Science is an exchange of ideas,” Jarabek says. “If we are working under a bushel basket, that doesn’t do anybody any good.”
Something of a boy scout To many who work with him, Gilman is considered an advocate for promoting science as part of EPA policy discussions. And he has called himself “something of a boy scout” for this focus, which has resulted in
some disagreements with officials from other agencies working on the same environmental problem. For example, Gilman says that EPA received many comments from other agencies, including Health and Human Services and DOE, over its State of the Environment Report released last June. But the input he gets from outside the agency is useful. “We get comments, and we react to them. I actually find that easy to deal with; that is part of the scientific process, that is peer review, and I can deal with that.” Even scientists with environmental and public health groups that are at odds with the recent policies from EPA and the Bush Administration have good words to say about Gilman. “I think he is a decent guy in a tough situation. He’s done the best that anybody can do to give EPA some credibility,” says Jennifer Sass of the health and environment program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. It’s unclear, however, whether that science discussion has had any effect on final policy decisions. Complaints have come from many sectors that are concerned that the Bush White House is ignoring scientific issues and instead doing what it can to protect business interests. Criticism includes a wellpublicized report from the public interest group Union of Concerned Scientists, which was signed by more than 60 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 142A); editorials published in top-ranking publications; and politicians from both parties on Capitol Hill. Last month, the administration released a rebuttal to the report. “He has made great strides in ensuring that the best science is brought forward for controversial matters,” says one administration official involved with environmental issues. “But very few of the issues he is dealing with are considered only scientific issues with this administration, and the other factors involved in a policy decision, [such as] social and political issues, have priority.” “This is an administration that is not really using science to set policy,” asserts environmental advocate Sass. Scientists and environmental groups have loudly criticized an administration proposal to control mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants via a cap-and-trade program (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 126A–127A). EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt recently announced that the proposal is still under development and that he has asked EPA staff to analyze and predict the emissions reductions from such a trading program. Gilman flatly denies that he has come under pressure from anyone, especially from those affiliated with the White House, to change his view on scientific issues. “Nobody has said to me, Change what you are doing,” Gilman says. “Nobody has said to me, Change the way you are doing it; nobody has said to me, I don’t like that number, change it. Cleary, OMB has participated in the regulatory process and [it continues] to do so…. Is the system any different from the way it was when I worked there [at OMB] 10–12 years ago? No. Most people would say if I had been asked to do something that was inappropriate or unethical, I wouldn’t do it.” MAY 15, 2004 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 183A
Many ORD staff scientists say that politics has always played a role in any final policy decision or rule. With Gilman on board, however, some researchers say they feel much more confident these days that the science related to a policy decision is considered more carefully, at least during the development of a new rule. “We don’t know what goes on behind doors at the higher levels,” one researcher says. “But now we know there is more science being discussed in the policy development stage.”
Leveraging limited funds As ORD chief, Gilman has been credited for looking for funding outside the agency to support and expand EPA’s science programs. One example is two agreements with ACC, which is keenly interested in EPA’s research on possible endocrine disrupters and other chemicals. ORD staff is working on other extramural projects with several agencies and outside labs. For example, in the area of computational toxicology, ORD has tapped into programs at DOE; NSF; the National Institutes of Health; and the private, nonprofit CIIT Centers for Health Research. Tapping into funds and communicating with researchers working on similar issues at other federal agencies and outside groups such as ACC is “one way we are going to stretch out dollars,” Gilman says. To keep research moving forward, ORD has a plan to make up for Bush’s FY ’05 proposed $22 million cut that eliminates ecosystem projects in the extramural grant program Science To Achieve Results (STAR). The program, which was praised for its success by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in a report released last year, is a federally funded competitive research program for the environmental sciences. STAR funds independent investigators, multidisciplinary teams, and graduate students. It’s likely that Congress will restore much of the STAR cuts proposed by Bush for FY ’05 (which amount to a 34% drop in funding to $65 million, and another 40% cut to a related fellowship program). But in these lean budget times, EPA will still have to reorder priorities to find enough research funds. To shore up funds for ecosystem research that would have been done under STAR, Gilman says EPA staff will reach out to smaller institutions, “not the Howard Hughes” foundations but those “where putting out a call for proposals is a stretch.” Staff will look for groups that share interests with EPA and offer to do much of the administrative work, such as the peer review, he says.
Back to basics Beyond juggling slowly decreasing research funds, Gilman says his accomplishments at EPA so far “fall largely under the category of a set of things I call ‘back to basics’ for the agency. If you have a role like science advisor or chief scientist, you tend to think about things like data quality, the overall quality of the research, the use of the research, and the use of science.” To upgrade the science basics, Gilman has reinvigorated a number of ongoing quality-related programs and designed a few others. Some projects 184A ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / MAY 15, 2004
are providing more scientific tools to EPA’s regional offices, for example, while others seek to offer quality assurance checks on the science. Gilman says he is particularly focused on the basics as a means to counter those critics who have repeatedly called for “sound science” in governmental regulatory decisions, especially those from EPA. Gilman says that one of his major pushes is to provide those antiregulatory or environmental groups that “watch” the agency with a full accounting of information that goes into the models that support regulatory programs. A project to revitalize the Council on Regulatory Environmental Modeling (CREM), a group dedicated to model development, evaluation, and application, released its draft guidance for environmental models in November 2003. Intended for model developers and users, computer programmers, and policy makers, the guidance attempts to provide some principles of “good modeling” for all users, along with recommendations and suggestions for how to use them. In January, CREM also released a new Model Knowledge Base (KBase), which is a Web-accessible database (http://cfpub.epa.gov/crem/knowledge_ base/knowbase.cfm) that contains EPA’s frequently used models. KBase has information on each model’s use, development, and assessment, and users can search the database by keywords and environmental indicators. The website includes a chat room, which should be especially useful to those working in one of EPA’s nine regional offices, Gilman says. The CREM team is now consulting with NAS to help validate and evaluate its models. Most of EPA’s regulatory decisions are based on these models, but in the past 30 years, very few have been subject to a peer review, Gilman notes. NAS is gathering a committee and plans to develop a “red book” or consensus document that establishes common definitions, concepts, and best practices for models used by any regulatory agency, says James Reisa, director of NAS’s National Research Council Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology. EPA also has in place a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program for managing its science information, Gilman says. An internal agency-wide policy issued about a decade ago created a QA division and a process that includes four parts: a systematic plan, documentation, analyses, and peer review. Each project manager or EPA regional researcher managing a Superfund cleanup draws up a plan detailing how the work will be documented, analyzed, and peer-reviewed, says Reggie Cheatham, director of the Quality Staff, which is now part of the Office of Environmental Information. Today marks the first time in EPA’s history that all 44 of its programs that are required to have a plan in place have one that is approved and is being used, Cheatham says. “As a science advisor, you worry about that system and the elements of that system,” Gilman says. “In that regard, we’ve done a couple of things that I am very pleased [about].” Catherine M. Cooney is a senior associate editor with ES&T.
