Scientists Grow Disillusioned Waiting for ‘Clear Guidance’ From Obama Admin
Tuesday, August 31st, 2010William Hirzy, a former U.S. EPA chemist, has a favorite example when discussing the role of science in government policy: fluoride in drinking water. His view — and that of the EPA chapter of the National Treasury Employees Union — is that the chemical can be dangerous, possibly increasing the risk of bone cancer in young boys. But EPA has yet to change its 4-milligrams-per-liter drinking water standard (though a spokesman said the agency is “actively moving ahead” with an assessment).
Hirzy worries that EPA officials are dragging their feet because the U.S. Public Health Service has long touted fluoride as a beneficial additive to drinking water. And to him, that slow response is indicative of the Obama administration’s failure to fulfill its promise of scientific integrity in federal agencies.
President Obama first directed that a scientific integrity directive be released in July 2009. By July 2010, White House officials promised it was forthcoming; almost two months later, there’s no indication of when it will emerge.
“Why this administration has taken so long, I don’t know,” said Hirzy, who is now an adjunct professor at American University. “I don’t know the motives. I just know the effects.”
Government scientists had high hopes when Obama took office. But Hirzy and others say that some are now disillusioned, witnessing less change than they had expected. They point to EPA’s use of dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the recent salmonella outbreak and egg recall, and the revelation that the diabetes drug Avandia increases the risk of heart attacks. In all cases, the concerns of some agency scientists were ignored, they say.
“All these times where something’s gone wrong, it’s pretty clear that someone on the inside knew or had concerns,” said Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). “Yet because we have no clear guidance on when and how scientists can speak out, and since we have no clear protection for whistle-blowers, it’s a lot to ask someone to go out on a limb.”
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to try to get to the bottom of the delay, asking for agencies’ feedback on the White House’s directive. Executive Director Jeff Ruch believes the answer for the holdup might be in that paperwork; agencies, he said, may be pushing back on the directive.
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy — tasked with writing the directive — did not return requests for comment. But Director John Holdren admitted in a blog post in June that the process was “more laborious and time-consuming than expected at the outset,” primarily because of the difficulty of establishing one set of principles for all federal agencies.
Ruch said agencies have improved little in the meantime.
“It’s different, but they haven’t lived up to the pledge,” he said, though he added that it was “hard to feel nostalgic” for the years under President George W. Bush. “The Obama administration raised our expectations principally through their own words.”
Indeed, Obama outlined a slew of intentions in a March 2009 memo, writing that political officials “should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions.” Research, he wrote, should be transparent and available to the public, while agencies should hire scientists solely for their expertise.
The president also directed the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to create a set of guidelines to ensure agencies met these goals. But Holdren wrote in June that Obama’s memo already bound agencies to improving their policies regarding research and transparency.
“There should not be any doubt that these principles have been in effect — that is, binding on all Executive departments and agencies — from the date of issue of the Memorandum on March 9, 2009,” he wrote.
Advocacy groups are skeptical.
“I’m sure there’s been improvement. The question is how much and how widespread,” said Grifo. “Is it enough? No. We’re still hearing from folks. … Decisions are being made that aren’t with the best science.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists has been closely following the issue for more than two years, keeping track of decisions and news that indicate whether federal agencies are beginning to give scientists more clout. When EPA disclosed the ingredients of the oil dispersant used in the Gulf, the nonprofit marked the move as a step forward. But the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration earned a “red light” on UCS’s websitewhen scientists criticized the agency for inaccurately measuring the spill’s size.
Grifo said some agencies have improved under Obama more than others. With changing leadership have come some “great strides,” she said. In her view, EPA has fared the best, thanks to Administrator Lisa Jackson. Indeed, EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan touted the agency’s decisions to declare greenhouse gases a threat, propose stricter smog standards and issue new guidelines on mountaintop-removal mining.
But Grifo said scientists at EPA and elsewhere still need federal guidelines — and that’s where the scientific integrity directive comes in.
“I get that it’s challenging. I get that there are many competing priorities,” she said. “But I think what will serve the American people will be able to sort out the important from the urgent and give it some attention.”