Pubdate: Wed, 25 Dec 2002
Source: Lexington Herald-Leader (KY)
Copyright: 2002 Lexington Herald-Leader
Contact:  http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/240
Author: Aaron Zitner, Los Angeles Times

RESEARCHERS SAY SCREENINGS FOR COMMITTEES ARE POLITICAL

Today's Topic: Scientific Advisory Appointments

WASHINGTON - When psychologist William R. Miller was asked to join a panel 
that advises the National Institute on Drug Abuse, he thought he had been 
selected for his expertise in addiction. Then a Bush administration staff 
member called with some unexpected questions.

Did Miller support abortion rights? What about the death penalty for "drug 
kingpins"? And had he voted for President Bush?

Apparently, Miller said, he did not give enough right answers -- he had 
not, for example, voted for Bush. He was never appointed to the panel.

With rising alarm, researchers are complaining that the Bush administration 
is using political and ideological screening tests to try to ensure that 
its scientific consultants recommend no policies that are out of step with 
the political agenda of the White House.

Administration officials say they are merely doing what their predecessors 
have always done: Using appointment powers to make sure their viewpoint is 
well represented on the government's scientific advisory boards, an 
important if unglamorous part of the policy-making process.

There are more than 250 boards devoted to public health and biomedical 
research alone, composed of experts from outside the government who help 
guide policy on gene therapy, bioterrorism, acceptable pollutant levels and 
other complex matters.

Still, critics say, the Bush administration is going further than its 
predecessors in considering ideology as well as scientific expertise in 
forming the panels.

A committee that merely gives technical advice on research proposals, as 
opposed to setting policy, has even been subject to screening, something 
the critics say was unheard of in previous administrations.

"I don't think any administration has penetrated so deeply into the 
advisory committee structure as this one, and I think it matters," said 
Donald Kennedy, past president of Stanford University and editor of 
Science, the premier U.S. scientific journal. "If you start picking people 
by their ideology instead of their scientific credentials, you are 
inevitably reducing the quality of the advisory group."

Many of the complaints concern agencies within the Department of Health and 
Human Services.

On Dec. 10, the Food and Drug Administration rejected a nominee for an 
advisory board who is known for his support of human cloning in medical 
research.

Also recently, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson's staff 
rejected a nominee to a board of the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health who supports federal rules to curtail repetitive stress 
injuries in the workplace.

The nominees had been chosen by officials within the FDA and occupational 
health agency but were then rejected by more senior officials. No specific 
reasons were given, but Bush opposes human cloning and last year signed a 
rollback of Clinton-era rules designed to limit repetitive stress injuries.

Those rejections followed incidents this fall in which public health 
advocates and Democratic lawmakers alleged that the administration had 
placed people sympathetic to industry on two panels at the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.

One panel advises CDC officials on the prevention of lead poisoning in 
children. The other makes recommendations on a range of issues, from 
environmental toxins to bioterrorism preparations.

"They're stacking committees to get the advice they know they want to hear, 
which is a charade," said David Michaels, a professor of public health at 
George Washington University, who served in the Clinton administration. 
"Why have an advisory panel if you know what everyone is going to say, and 
they agree with you?"

Some critics also complain that Thompson has added an ideological cast to 
the mission of some advisory panels.

To the applause of anti-abortion groups, the administration in October 
directed a panel to study what protections are offered to embryos during 
medical experiments, using language that equated embryos with "human 
subjects." Health officials said their intent was to add protections to 
pregnant women who participate in medical experiments.

Bill Pierce, a spokesman for the Health and Human Services Department, said 
Bush and Thompson were trying to add balance to the advisory committees.

"This whole idea of a grand conspiracy here or a litmus test -- it's just 
not true," Pierce said. "When you look at the totality of any of these 
committees, you'll find that they are highly qualified and represent a 
broad section of the thinking, so that you have a spirited discussion of 
the issues."

Others said that some of the complaints may reflect a difference in style 
between Thompson, who as former governor of Wisconsin is familiar with 
using all the levers of power, and his predecessor in the federal 
government's top health slot, Donna Shalala.

"This is a four-term governor. This is not an academic, as Dr. Shalala 
was," said Dr. John Howard, director of the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health. "This secretary scrutinizes appointments."

But Thomas Murray, president of The Hastings Center, a New York bioethics 
center, said he saw a "pattern" in the rejection of nominees to health 
panels, including his own nomination to the Biological Response Modifiers 
Advisory Committee, an FDA panel that considers protein drugs, gene therapy 
and other matters.

"The fact that they would even bother to blacklist me is ... deeply sad," 
Murray said. "It portends a distortion of the process of determining what 
the facts are on a health topic or in environmental policy."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom