A move toward bias-free science

Cynthia Henry

is an Inquirer staff writer

The 15,000 scientists and engineers who protested the manipulation, suppression, and distortion of research during the Bush administration no doubt welcomed President Obama's pledge last week to restore scientific integrity to the White House.

Lifting the ban on research on embryonic stem cells Monday, Obama promised to let "scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion" and to listen "to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient, especially when it's inconvenient." He assigned his advisers to develop integrity safeguards within 120 days.

With earnest words and the stroke of a pen, it was goodbye to George W. Bush's "sound science," and welcome to Obama's "soundest science."

If only it were that simple.

A system plagued by politicized science "will not magically vanish with a change of administration or a shift in the composition of the Congress," concluded a preliminary report issued Tuesday by the Science for Policy Project of the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.

"The politicization of science is a risk across the political spectrum," said panel member Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado. "The Bush administration had especially heavy-handed controls, but science and politics come into conflict in every administration."

Regardless of who's in office, issues such as global warming, genetic research, and nuclear power will attract advocates who selectively engage experts to advance their cause. Scientists themselves sometimes assume the guise of all-knowing authority and impugn opponents with whom they disagree politically.

Science can inform policymaking, but it alone cannot forge political consensus. Some politicians - George W. Bush, for example - hide behind that fallacy, pretending to await "definitive research" before acting.

"The task of rebuilding scientific integrity is huge," said Francesca Grifo, director of the science-integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "You have to ask, 'What's science? What's abuse of science?' "

Her organization documented hundreds of examples of censored testimony, altered reports, suppressed findings, harassed appointees, and other political interference with science between 2002 and 2007.

To prevent future abuse, UCS is not content to rely on the new president's eloquent speeches. It recommends a systemic overhaul: more public disclosure, better whistle-blower protection, improved appointment screening, and beefed-up rule enforcement.

The Science for Policy Group has similar ideas. Its 13 members, who include University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan, span the ideological spectrum and include representatives of business, academia, government, and nonprofit groups. Its final report is due by summer.

To distance science from politics, scientists need to step back into a clear, respected advisory role.

As Pielke said, "Politicians act politically; it's in their job description to make the best case they can." Obama's policy reversal on stem cell research, for example, was "every bit a decision based on values," he said. It was just a different set of values from George W. Bush's.

Science advisers, on the other hand, can be honest brokers, he says. They should act as hotel concierges - experts who politely answer questions - or play the role of an Expedia or Travelocity, offering a detailed range of choices in a neutral fashion. The goal is informing a wise choice.

Conflicts arise when advisory boards are inadvertently tasked to make policy rather than provide information. A value-laden question such as "Should genetically modified rice be grown?" steers a different course from a fact-seeking query such as "What are the risks and benefits to growing genetically modified rice?"

Last week, Obama pledged to make decisions based on fact, not ideology, and to share the science behind decisions openly with Americans. Success will likely depend on reining people in and spending political capital.

In the end, science and politics may still collide, but the public will know why - and whom to blame.