Scientists horrified by Bush's Bad Science

[Guest guest]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/12/bush_bad_science/

 

Scientists horrified by Bush's Bad Science

By Ashlee Vance in Chicago

Published Monday 12th July 2004 17:21 GMT

 

What started as a group of 62 scientists fighting what

they saw as Bad Science being practiced by the Bush

administration has now bloated to a body with more

than 4,000 whitecoats calling for change.

 

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), in a new

report, has again expressed its feeling of

" embarrassment and disgust " over the way the Bush

administration uses - or misuses - science when making

policy decisions. The scientists have found that the

administration often ignores the recommendations of

advisory panels and " suppresses, distorts and

manipulates " scientific work. In particular, the group

is concerned about Bad Science affecting environment,

emergency contraception and endangered species

policies .

 

UCS issued a previous complaint in February with 62

signatures but has amassed over 4,000 signatures for

its latest report released this month. The signers

include 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of

Science recipients and 127 members of the National

Academy of Sciences.

 

" The actions by the Bush administration threaten to

undermine the morale and compromise the integrity of

scientists working for and advising America’s

world-class governmental research institutions and

agencies, " UCS said. " Not only does the public expect

and deserve government to provide it with accurate

information, the government has a responsibility to

ensure that policy decisions are not based on

intentionally or knowingly flawed science. To do so

carries serious implications for the health, safety,

and environment of all Americans. "

 

To its credit, UCS has laid out specific instances

where it believe the Bush administration ignored

science - the first being an environmental impact

statement (EIS) on mountaintop removal mining in

Appalachia. As it turns out, the removal of mountain

ridges to reveal coal punishes the environment near

the mines.

 

" Scientists working for various federal agencies have

documented a wide range of enormously destructive

environmental impacts from this mining technique, " the

UCS said. " More than 7 percent of Appalachian forests

have been cut down and more than 1,200 miles of

streams across the region have been buried or polluted

between 1985 and 2001.

 

" According to the federal government’s scientific

analysis, mountaintop removal mining, if it continues

unabated, will cause a projected loss of more than 1.4

million acres by the end of the next decade - an area

the size of Delaware - with a concomitant, severe

impact on fish, wildlife, and bird species, not to

mention a devastating effect on many neighboring

communities. "

 

The EIS presented by scientists had over 5,000 pages

detailing the destructive nature of this type of

mining. The Bush administration, however, " softened "

the report by ordering words such as " significant " and

" severe " to be excised from the documents and by

massaging economic data. Scientists were politely told

that the EIS " was going to be taken in a different

direction. "

 

A number of scientists complained that no alternative

to mountaintop removal mining was even considered when

that is supposed to be part of any EIS.

 

UCS is also upset by an FDA (Food and Drug

Administration) official's decision to ban " Plan B " -

a drug for preventing pregnancy up to 72 hours after

sex - from being prescribed.

 

" In the case, Steven Galson, acting director of the

FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,

acknowledged to reporters recently that he overturned

the recommendations of his own staff and two FDA

advisory panels in declaring the drug “not approvable”

for nonprescription status, " said UCS. " A joint

meeting of two independent FDA scientific advisory

committees voted 23 to 4 in December 2003 to recommend

the emergency contraceptive as an over-the-counter

drug. The panel also voted unanimously that the drug

could be safely sold over the counter. "

 

Overwhelming testimony by doctors pointed to the drug

being safe and effective at preventing unwanted

pregnancies.

 

" Nonetheless, Dr. Galson broke with agency protocol by

overruling FDA staff scientists who had concluded that

this drug met FDA criteria for nonprescription status

and overwhelmingly recommended the switch, " UCS said.

" In overruling his staff and the advisory committee,

Galson offered no substantial new evidence, and took

the unusual step of writing the official response to

the drug company himself. "

 

At least you can't accuse Bush of bowing to the

pharmaceutical industry here.

 

On the subject of endangered species, UCS is

particularly concerned with the Bush administration's

salmon policy. A number of scientists have argued that

wild fish and hatchery fish should be kept separate

when counting the population of a particular species.

This seems to make sense - best to gauge the success

of a population by looking at it in the wild rather

than in a petri dish. Ah, but no fast.

 

" The development of a new Bush administration policy

on hatchery fish was overseen by Mark Rutzick, who

early in 2003 was appointed by President Bush as

special adviser to the NOAA General Counsel, " UCS

said. " Previously, Rutzick served as a lawyer for the

timber industry and was a strong opponent of fish and

wildlife protections that logging companies viewed as

overly restrictive. Rutzick first proposed the

strategy of including hatchery fish in population

counts for endangered salmon while he worked on behalf

of timber interests. "

 

After taking some criticism over Rutzick, the Bush

administration did make some changes to its proposed

hatchery policy but still a number of population

counts combine wild and hatchery fish for certain

species.

 

The UCS report points out several other instances

where Bush's endangered species policies resemble

those of a nineteenth-century fur trader. The report

also documents a number of scientists complaining that

they were asked who they had voted for in the

Presidential elections when being interviewed for

various scientific panels.

 

In total, UCS called for the Bush administration to

have a much more open, investigative approach to

scientific matters. Something along the the lines of

actually considering the evidence presented. ®