Living in Bosnia-Herzegovina Environmental Case Study What Is Sound Science? Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display. 1 Science is becoming a...

Please read through the attached Case Study provided and think through the questions at the end.


Living in Bosnia-Herzegovina Environmental Case Study What Is Sound Science? Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display. 1 Science is becoming a battleground. Once respected as rational and objective, scientists are increasingly coming under attack by those who want to promote a particular ideology or protect their own special interests. Studies that conflict with partisan agendas or corporate profits are dismissed as “junk science.” More and more politicians demand “sound science” to be used in policy making. But what constitutes sound science? With no accepted definition among scientists, the term often merely means studies validating a particular commercial or ideological perspective. Thousands of career scientists work for state and federal agencies. We depend on their research to provide information on everything from environmental quality to public health and safety. In addition, the government relies on hundreds of voluntary scientific advisory committees to provide expert recommendations on scientific policy as well as to peer review applications for funding of proposed research programs. There is increasing concern that these advisory panels are being packed with people who will provide those in power with what they want to hear. In addition, federal employees are pressured to modify their findings to suit political agendas or corporate interests. Scientists who speak out on important public issues often are subjected to reprisals such as demotions or withdrawal of research funding. While politicians have probably always tried to shape studies to support their own purposes, there is growing alarm about widespread political interference in science in recent years. An unprecedented expression of this concern occurred in 2004 when the Union of Concerned Scientists released a 46-page report accusing the Bush administration of misusing and distorting science to serve political ends. The report was endorsed by more than 60 prominent American scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and top science advisors to three previous Republican presidents. Among the charges in this report are that administration officials: • Ordered extensive changes to a section on global warming in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2003 Report on the Environment. Eventually the entire section was deleted and the report said nothing about climate change. • Removed public health experts from a lead-paint advisory committee and replaced them with researchers with close ties to the lead industry. • Suppressed a Department of Agriculture microbiologist’s findings that infectious bacteria are released in air-borne effluents from large hog farms. • Ordered fisheries biologists to stop studies showing that agricultural water withdrawals from California’s Klamath River threaten endangered salmon populations. • Supported revisions to the Endangered Species Act to greatly constrain scientific input into the process of identifying endangered species and critical habitats for their protection. • Replaced a fact sheet on proper condom use prepared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with a warning emphasizing condom failure. • Fired two members of the Council on Bioethics—a highly regarded embryologist and a moral philosopher—who favored research on human stem cells, and replaced them with individuals more ideologically aligned with the administration’s conservative agenda. • Instituted “peer review” requirements for any science used in policy formation that exclude everyone who works for a federal agency, has received federal funding for research, or has ever written anything about the issue being considered. This means that “peer” review can be done only by industry representatives or those with no previous experience on the topic. In response, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy chief John Marburger dismissed the scientists' complaints as partisan sniping in its own right. Previous administrations have Environmental Case Study What Is Sound Science? Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display. 2 packed panels and filled government positions with people who favor environmental protection, the president’s supporters contend. Current policies merely restore balance, they claim. What do you think, using the principles of science presented in the first chapter in this book, what characteristics would you look for in judging the validity of scientific data or the impartiality of scientific experts? We want public policy to be informed by scientific research, but how can scientists participate in the public debates while also maintaining objectivity and academic freedom? What safeguards could we install to insure that researchers can work without pressure to conform to political agendas? For further information, see: Paskus, Laura. 2003. “Sound science goes sour.” High Country News 35 (12): Kennedy, D, 2001. "An Unfortunate U-turn on Carbon." (editorial) Science, Vol. 291, March 30, 2001 p. 2515.