Post by Merkuri on Feb 3, 2004 9:48:29 GMT -5
[From Wired News: www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62119,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 ]
Stacking the Deck Against Science
By Kristen Philipkoski
02:00 AM Feb. 03, 2004 PT
Under the guise of promoting sound science, the Bush administration is advancing a policy that could make it more difficult for federal agencies to protect health and the environment, U.S. scientists say.
A White House Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, bulletin (PDF) drafted in August 2003 would allow the government to hand-pick scientists to second-guess scientific research, opponents say. The text of the bulletin says its purpose would be to ensure that all research affecting federal regulations, such as environmental or health advisories, would be thoroughly peer reviewed by unbiased researchers.
But scientists feel the government is commandeering a term that is near and dear to their hearts.
Peer review is the backbone of all serious science. It's a process by which top experts in a given field examine research for flaws, and often send it back to researchers for more work before it's disseminated to the public. But scientists say the White House version of peer review would allow the government to stack review committees in favor of the government and industry.
"It wouldn't be peer review as we're used to," said William Schlesinger, president of the Ecological Society of America, which represents 8,000 scientists in academia, government and industry.
The OMB bulletin would require that peer reviewers be "independent of the agency" involved when it comes to "significant regulatory information." Experts receiving funding from the agency involved, who have performed multiple peer reviews for that agency in recent years or just one review on the same topic, would be eliminated as potential reviewers.
That would eliminate the top experts in a given field, scientists said in letters responding to the bulletin.
"Anyone really good has done some science and made a conclusion," Schlesinger said. "If you eliminate those people, probably the researchers did multiple reviews because they were recognized as being good at it. (Also,) anybody any good on an issue is always looking for research funding."
Many also complain that the bulletin does not address ways to combat conflict of interest when it comes to researchers working in the private sector.
Opponents of the bulletin also said the definition of "significant" or "especially significant" regulatory information was so broad that it could lead to an unmanageable number of federally mandated peer reviews.
The OMB did not return repeated phone calls, and it's unclear when the OMB will advance the bulletin or if it will be revised.
Five congressmen and members of the Committee on Science wrote a response to the bulletin saying items as disparate as Alan Greenspan's decisions on interest rates, Veterans Affairs drug prices and weather warnings could fall under this rule and require peer review.
"When the National Weather Service predicts a major storm, it has immediate implications for businesses and governments in affected areas," they wrote (PDF). "It would appear completely unworkable, however, to obtain peer review of this information on a regular basis."
The peer-review proposal could dangerously slow down the process of warning the public about health dangers, said Winifred DePalma, regulatory affairs counsel for Public Citizen.
"This is explicitly taking control over when the public health and environmental agencies can make an announcement to the public," DePalma said. "You would have to go through peer review before disseminating that information to the public unless peer review is waived."
Respondents to the bulletin are divided between industry and scientific or environmental groups. For example, the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association and the Industrial Minerals Association favor the proposal. The American Academy for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences and the Natural Resources Defense Council oppose it.
Opponents also say the measure is trying to fix something that's not broken.
"There's nothing wrong with the system," said Georges Benjamin, president of the American Public Health Association. "People might not like the way the good science comes out, so they want to look for an opposition to second-guess it. I don't know what OMB's motives are, but I think they've got a solution looking for a problem."
"It is really amazing that OMB has not pointed out a single instance of bad rule-making or decision-making based on (scientific) information," DePalma said.
Stacking the Deck Against Science
By Kristen Philipkoski
02:00 AM Feb. 03, 2004 PT
Under the guise of promoting sound science, the Bush administration is advancing a policy that could make it more difficult for federal agencies to protect health and the environment, U.S. scientists say.
A White House Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, bulletin (PDF) drafted in August 2003 would allow the government to hand-pick scientists to second-guess scientific research, opponents say. The text of the bulletin says its purpose would be to ensure that all research affecting federal regulations, such as environmental or health advisories, would be thoroughly peer reviewed by unbiased researchers.
But scientists feel the government is commandeering a term that is near and dear to their hearts.
Peer review is the backbone of all serious science. It's a process by which top experts in a given field examine research for flaws, and often send it back to researchers for more work before it's disseminated to the public. But scientists say the White House version of peer review would allow the government to stack review committees in favor of the government and industry.
"It wouldn't be peer review as we're used to," said William Schlesinger, president of the Ecological Society of America, which represents 8,000 scientists in academia, government and industry.
The OMB bulletin would require that peer reviewers be "independent of the agency" involved when it comes to "significant regulatory information." Experts receiving funding from the agency involved, who have performed multiple peer reviews for that agency in recent years or just one review on the same topic, would be eliminated as potential reviewers.
That would eliminate the top experts in a given field, scientists said in letters responding to the bulletin.
"Anyone really good has done some science and made a conclusion," Schlesinger said. "If you eliminate those people, probably the researchers did multiple reviews because they were recognized as being good at it. (Also,) anybody any good on an issue is always looking for research funding."
Many also complain that the bulletin does not address ways to combat conflict of interest when it comes to researchers working in the private sector.
Opponents of the bulletin also said the definition of "significant" or "especially significant" regulatory information was so broad that it could lead to an unmanageable number of federally mandated peer reviews.
The OMB did not return repeated phone calls, and it's unclear when the OMB will advance the bulletin or if it will be revised.
Five congressmen and members of the Committee on Science wrote a response to the bulletin saying items as disparate as Alan Greenspan's decisions on interest rates, Veterans Affairs drug prices and weather warnings could fall under this rule and require peer review.
"When the National Weather Service predicts a major storm, it has immediate implications for businesses and governments in affected areas," they wrote (PDF). "It would appear completely unworkable, however, to obtain peer review of this information on a regular basis."
The peer-review proposal could dangerously slow down the process of warning the public about health dangers, said Winifred DePalma, regulatory affairs counsel for Public Citizen.
"This is explicitly taking control over when the public health and environmental agencies can make an announcement to the public," DePalma said. "You would have to go through peer review before disseminating that information to the public unless peer review is waived."
Respondents to the bulletin are divided between industry and scientific or environmental groups. For example, the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association and the Industrial Minerals Association favor the proposal. The American Academy for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences and the Natural Resources Defense Council oppose it.
Opponents also say the measure is trying to fix something that's not broken.
"There's nothing wrong with the system," said Georges Benjamin, president of the American Public Health Association. "People might not like the way the good science comes out, so they want to look for an opposition to second-guess it. I don't know what OMB's motives are, but I think they've got a solution looking for a problem."
"It is really amazing that OMB has not pointed out a single instance of bad rule-making or decision-making based on (scientific) information," DePalma said.
