EPA scientists complain about political pressure

[nam78_two]

This is the kind of stuff that comes to my mind when I hear libertarian-leaning people complaining about "too much regulation". The Bushies have been working on dismantling the EPA/FDA and USDA -the last thing this country needs at this point is "less regulation"....


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiG8PT3cEiOqXFkMJuutD97RCoeQD907NRL00

EPA scientists complain about political pressure
By H. JOSEF HEBERT – 7 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists say they have been pressured by superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey released Wednesday by an advocacy group.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar attributed some of the discontent to the "passion" scientists have toward their work. He said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, as a longtime career scientist at the EPA himself, "weighs heavily the science given to him by the staff in making policy decisions."

But Francesca Grifo, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program, said the survey results revealed "an agency in crisis" and "under siege from political pressures" especially among scientists involved in risk assessment and crafting regulations.

end snip

The EPA has been under fire from members of Congress on a number of fronts including its delay in determining whether carbon dioxide should be regulated to combat global warming. Johnson also has been criticized for rejecting recommendations from science advisory boards on a number of air pollution issues including control of mercury from power plants and how much to reduce smog pollution.

In the survey, the EPA scientists described an agency suffering from low morale as senior managers and the White House Office of Management and Budget frequently second-guess scientific findings and change work conducted by EPA's scientists, the report said.



**************************************************

More at the link....

[Uncle Joe]

1. I don't view the Bush regime as libertarian so much as neo-fascist in nature..

They're not against government regulation of the American People's private lives, only corporations. They believe Big Brother should be in every aspect of our life and there is no constitutional right of privacy for the individual.

The executive branch is a different story, they're not accountable to anyone and the same holds true for their mega-rich or corporate benefactors.

I'm kicking and recommending your post anyway, I view the environment as a national, indeed global security issue and I don't believe the scientists or EPA should have their views politically manipulated.

Thanks for the thread, nam78_two

[nam78_two]

2. Thanks Uncle Joe

I do tend to think that while libertarian ideology incorporates some good things, by and large it can be and imo is misused. And I think environmental issues do tend to largely get the short shrift from people who can be described as hyper free-market libertarians.

I have to confess to not being a big fan of the philosophy. In the most simplistic terms- I do tend to find a lot of it to be very similar to the sort of "me first" thinking that I associate with conservatism.

But, I agree with you that the Bushies are more fascist than libertarian. I just think that most of the large thinktanks that are libertarian (AEI, CEI etc) are really thinking about the "freedom" of big corporations to do whatever they want when yammer about "liberty", "nanny states" etc. Thanks for the K&R :hi:.

[notesdev]

3. If you take your money from the government

then you hardly have a valid complaint about political pressure. Politics is the only reason they're getting that money to begin with; it's a double edged sword. Want to make your own rules, come up with your own money.

[nam78_two]

4. ???

I am not sure I even read that correctly. I have to tell you, if I read your response right, that is a grossly inaccurate take on how scientific research works or at least is supposed to work (to put it mildly). The agency that funds your scientific research (whether it is government sponsored research or research supported by a foundation of some sort) does not get to dictate your results That is scientific fraud. Nothing to do with double edged swords etc.-if you are telling a scientist to produce results that you want to see and disregarding their actual results, that is scientific fraud.


When the government pressures scientists to do this, they are engaging in highly unethical behavior. Environmental scientists working on risk assessment of different chemicals for instance, are not supposed to make up stuff that the government wants to hear. And nobody should be ok with the government interfering with science.
For instance, I am a researcher and my work is funded by the NIH-this does not mean that the NIH gets to tell me what my results should be. Our lab note-books for instance are considered federal documents. I am not sure scientific fraud is still considered a federal offense, but it used to be (when the research support comes from federal agencies such as the NIH and NSF). And there have been scientists who have gone on trial for the same:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thereza_Imanishi-Kari

And it is just as fraudulent for an external agency to pressure a scientist to misrepresent their results, as it is for a rogue scientist to invent their own results a la Jan Schon.
These are not issues to have a lax attitude towards. It absolutely is scientific fraud, whether it is this disgusting administration pressuring a government agency to support laxer air quality standards, or for instance a pharmaceutical giant suppressing data that might hurt their profits. And when science is suppressed for profits for instance, this sort of stuff results:

http://www.hindu.com/seta/2008/04/24/stories/2008042450061500.htm

Vioxx safety data manipulated
R. PRASAD
A Merck’s internal communication talks of the drug being associated with an increased risk of causing deaths

snip from the article:


Vioxx went on to become a blockbuster drug in the five years that it was in the market.

New evidence published in the reputed Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) confirms that the company was well aware of its dangers even before it withdrew the drug in 2004. The paper looked at human clinical trials done for Alzheimer’s starting 1999.

It may well turn out to be one of the greatest drug scandals in the recent past. And it once again confirms that many pharmaceutical companies will stoop to any level and act in an unscrupulous manner to get a blockbuster into the market. Never mind that volunteers and patients are put to great risks.

“Where patients come first,” ironically, is the drug maker’s slogan!

Merck, like many other drug companies, has been found to have suppressed and manipulated certain critical data that misled the regulatory body — the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The confidential information provided by Merck to the FDA and internal analyses conducted by the company reveal how systematically it went about the process.

The clinical trials for Alzheimer’s were quite different from other trials. Apart from looking at the safety issue during the course of the trial (on-treatment safety), the trials looked for safety even after the completion of the trial duration (intention-to-treat). At least, that is how the company projected it.

Results published in journals had stated that the drug was “well-tolerated” and safety was not an issue. But any data on deaths that may have occurred 14 days after the completion of the trials were not included.

The authors found that even the Safety Update Report (SUR) filed in 2001 by Merck to the FDA did not explain how it arrived at the number of deaths seen during the trials. It did not include deaths, if any, that had occurred after the 14-day period.

Suppressing data


“In other words, it appears that the sponsor presented only an on-treatment and not an intention-to-treat analysis for total mortality,” the authors noted. This was a clear case of Merck withholding crucial safety data from the FDA.

The proof of misleading and withholding critical safety data from the FDA came in the form of an internal memorandum sent by Merck’s statistician few months before it submitted the Safety Update Report to the regulator in 2001.