In fields ranging from ergonomics to the hazards of radiation,
many university scientists are increasingly concerned about the
integrity of their research.
As the public demands legislation on public health issues, some
researchers complain that their work is becoming more politicized.
Others see little change.
Many public health scientists say the Bush administration is
putting unprecedented political pressure on their research by
stacking peer review committees with partisans.
The makeup of peer review panels and advisory committees is
extremely important to the academic community because these
entities review research for publication and allocate funding.
Linda Rosenstock, UCLA’s dean of public health, has
expressed her concern that scientists are having to undergo
political litmus tests before serving on peer review committees,
which could stalemate research that does not conform to the current
administration’s ideology.
“We want to believe that policy is based on the best
available science, but the Bush administration is blurring the line
where science ends and policy begins,” Rosenstock said.
Rosenstock said the current administration has placed its own
ideological supporters in some of the most basic levels of the
scientific review process, which could hinder funding or
publication of controversial studies.
Rosenstock said she has personally experienced a political
roadblock. Her study on workplace ergonomics was delayed because
the Bush administration rescinded a rule which required businesses
to prevent injuries from repetitive motions in the workplace, she
said.
“The administration is effectually denying that they are
making an economic decision (about ergonomics) by claiming that
they are inhibited by scientific uncertainty,” Rosenstock
said, arguing that sufficient evidence exists for the importance of
ergonomics.
“If something is not feasible politically, they should
just admit it, rather than saying it is about a lack of scientific
evidence.”
Concerns of science being corrupted by politics extend far
beyond UCLA.
For example, national groups such as the National Organization
for Women and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America are
upset about the appointment of Dr. David Hager to the Reproductive
Health Drugs Advisatory committee at the Food and Drug
Administration.
Hager is an obstetrician-gynecologist at the University of
Kentucky who has written books on the healing power of Jesus, and
is an anti-abortion activist.
Hager’s detractors cite his stance against abortion and an
article in “Time” magazine which reports that he has
refused to prescribe contraceptives to unwed women to explain their
concerns about his objectivity.
Whatever the motivations behind the Bush administration’s
scientific policy, Marianne Parker Brown ““ director of
UCLA’s Labor Occupational Safety and Health program and chair
of the Occupational Safety and Health section of the American
Public Health Association for 2001-2002 ““ said many
scientists in her 1,000-member group of volunteer public health
advocates were concerned that the Administration is monitoring and
influencing advisory panel appointments at an unprecedented
scale.
“In my 25 years of involvement in occupational health, I
have never heard of the federal government having this level of
involvement in such panels,” she said.
Despite researchers’ claims that the Bush administration
is influencing their research, very few members of advisory
committees are actually appointed by the president.
If there is political pressure on the committees, it might come
from the Department of Health and Human Services, which appoints
most of the members of the advisory committees, rather than
directly from the White House.
However, Charles Delisi, chairman of the board of Scientific
Counselors for the National Library of Medicine ““ one of the
many advisory committees to the Department of Health and Human
Services ““ said he has not felt any increased political
influence.
While researchers agree that peer review committees are
generally very effective, they can become lopsided if the panelists
are selected based on political orientation.
For example, Science magazine reported that when the Department
of Health and Human Services selected panelists for a recent
advisory board to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health, several nominees reported being asked loaded questions
about their politics.
Pamela Kidd, an injury prevention expert and associate dean of
the College of Nursing at Arizona State University, told Science
magazine that she was asked if she would advocate controversial
worker safety issues if she was selected for the panel.
Beate Ritz, associate professor of epidemiology at UCLA,
stressed the importance of having qualified review panels which
include a variety of opinions.
“Peer review is not perfect, but as long as the peer
review panels are diverse, it is the best system we have,”
Ritz said.
According to Professor Ritz, however, the political significance
of panel selections can be ambiguous because the significance of
selections can be easily misconstrued.
Ritz described one such situation in which she was recommended
for a NIOSH panel to reimburse employees who were injured at work,
but she was never contacted.
She might have been rejected because of her research on the
dangers of low level radiation, but maybe not.
“This could mean that I was less qualified, or that those
doing the selecting didn’t want people who think low level
radiation is harmful,” she said.