PoliSci: GOP to hit back at scientists?

WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 (UPI) -- A Bush campaign representative said last week that complaints from the science community about administration misuses and manipulation of science were politically motivated and suggested researchers could face a "push back" for becoming politically active.

The Bush administration has been increasingly criticized over the last four years for ignoring or misrepresenting politically inconvenient research results. The White House also has been accused of stacking committees meant to make tough scientific judgments with politically sympathetic appointees and skewing government-provided information to support conservative views.

Many scientists have expressed concern about the issue and raised those concerns again last Thursday in Washington at a debate on science policy sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Bob Walker, selected to speak for the Bush-Cheney campaign, told attendees the escalating controversy could negatively impact government support of science. Though private dollars back much of the work in developing applications, the federal government is still the largest single source of funding for basic research.

"If scientists are going to be politically active," Walker said, "all of us who have been in politics know that the opposition finds ways of moving in opposite ways. So what you would find is that kind of prominence will create debates on Capitol Hill that I don't think science should do."

"If you are, in fact, going to say that your scientific efforts are, in fact, tied to political decisions, then don't expect that the political decision makers are going to separate it when you would like to get away from that kind of choice," Walker added.

"(Scientists) are concerned about the process," said Henry Kelly, president of the Federation of American Scientists and the representative selected by the Kerry campaign.

"I think that to suggest that because scientists are raising concerns about the openness and integrity of the process that they are going to be punished politically is not a terribly attractive message to be sending."

For better or worse, the very nature of some research has tremendous policy implications. Researchers studying everything from stem cells to chemical risks, the environment, HIV/AIDS prevention, teenage pregnancy, climate change and cancer have announced results that run counter to administration social and economic agendas.

Well-reported moves by the White House to control scientific input have brought the administration into increasing conflict with the science community, which sees such efforts as a direct assault on the process that gives scientists their credibility.

The science community has reacted. By nearly all accounts, it is more negative and organized in its opposition to the Bush administration than it has been toward any previous administration.

Case in point: A letter signed by more than 5,000 scientists -- including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients and 135 members of the National Academy of Sciences -- has criticized the administration by name, saying it has disregarded principals of objectivity and impartiality where research is concerned. It was issued in conjunction with the first of two reports from the Union of Concerned Scientists detailing concerns over the administration's use of science in its policymaking.

Walker discounted the letter, however, saying it was political not the first time the science community had taken an anti-administration stance.

"Back in 1992 the Union of Concerned Scientists did another political document in which they issued an attack on the first Bush administration," Walker said, "and at that point they had 1,700 scientists that signed on to it. They claimed a majority of Nobel laureates. I mean, this is not a new thing in political campaigns -- this has been going on for a decade or two."

Research by United Press International found a document issued by USC in 1992 that featured 1,700 signatories. Unlike the recent letter, however, the "World Scientists Warning to Humanity" laid out general concerns over global environmental, calling for action by developed nations. It did not name the United States or criticize the first Bush administration.

Walker said liberal bias was driving the complaints and allegations of bias were unfounded.

"I think there is a political dimension to this that just has to be recognized," he said. "I mean a lot of the scientists and a lot of (the members of) the academic community come out of institutions that have a heavily liberal bias. ... If they want to come out and support Sen. (John) Kerry (D-Mass.), that's fine. But what I find disappointing is when we fail to separate the science from the politics. Because you are politically committed to a particular cause does not mean the other side has, in fact, undermined science. I think that science does itself a disservice when, in fact, it mixes those two things in a way that can engender a push back at some point in the future."

In his opening statement, Walker listed billions of dollars in research programs the White House was supporting, implying the administration could be a funding ally if re-elected, whatever a scientist's political motivations.

"I realize that scientists have political agendas, and that's fine," Walker said. "I realize that scientists have personal agendas, and that's fine too. That's the way it should be. But I also realize that the vast majority of scientists want the resources and opportunities that will make their contributions to the future of mankind more clearly accepted and will produce those kinds of outcomes and they want allies in that kind of a quest. In this administration you have an ally and you will continue to have an ally for years to come."

When asked at the end of the debate if, in his "push back" comment, he was suggesting the administration would limit funding of its critics, Walker said he was not referring to the administration but to the Republican-controlled Congress.

"My point is the one that we discussed here a few minutes ago about the fact that people on Capitol Hill can go and find science projects and begin to ridicule them and in the process ... of what goes on inside (Congress)," he said. "They can find ways of cutting money because they say something sounds (like something) they would not want to have happening with public money."

--

E-mail ddivis@upi.com