WASHINGTON, Dec. 28 (UPI) -- Public faith in the science advice provided by the federal government took several hard hits during 2004, as politics and circumstance converged to undermine further the general credibility of science policy and federal researchers.
Concerns voiced during the first few years of the current Bush administration grew louder as questions about appointees to science advisory boards, censorship of controversial research results by the government, and other matters undermining the trustworthiness of science policy decisions were collected and publicized by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Two reports, one released in February and another in July, included a statement signed by more than 5,000 scientists claiming the Bush administration ignored the principals of objectivity and impartiality and sought to manipulate the scientific process whenever it came into conflict with White House political goals.
A 20-page response by John Marburger, the president's science adviser -- who is a Democrat -- did not lay the matter to rest and in some places seemed to raise more questions.
For example, Marburger cited the case of an Agricultural Research Service scientist who had discovered the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the dust around hog farms. The researcher, the UCS asserted, had been denied permission to report his findings publicly.
Marburger countered the case had been inaccurately represented. He said there were, in fact, opportunities in which the scientists could speak about the public health ramifications of the observation -- a subject on which Marburger acknowledged he lacked data.
The researcher was allowed to speak about the matter of airborne bacteria at agricultural meetings, but he was not allowed to present his findings at public health meetings -- the sort of conferences attended by those better suited to examine independently the health aspects of bacteria-laden dust.
Marburger's long response presented the Bush administration's perspective on most of the issues raised by the UCS, but it did not appear to have persuaded the science community. In meeting after meeting attended by United Press International during 2004, conversations reflected a presumption that the administration would attempt to politicize controversial research results. The matter even came up in the debate over a proposal made this fall by the National Institutes of Health to provide free access to journal articles based on the research it funded. Was it not unwise, asserted the publishers stretching for an argument against the move, to have a government that could not be trusted put in charge of disseminating research?
If reports of political manipulation left the public disillusioned then they must have been dismayed by autumn's events. Starting with congressional hearings in September, the nation experienced a continual flow of reports on problems with popular drugs and revelations of financial conflicts of interest. By the end of the year, it appeared as if the nation's health researchers and drug-safety watchdogs had buckled under pressure from the pharmaceutical companies.
The Food and Drug Administration's credibility took a body blow during joint hearings into the poor handling of reports that certain anti-depressants increased suicidal behavior in children. Not long after the hearings, the FDA finally added warnings about the problems to the labels of the drugs -- an act that, from the outside, appeared necessary, measured and seriously overdue.
The FDA's credibility took a further hit when, only one week later, pharmaceutical-maker Merck withdrew its arthritis medication Vioxx from the market after information came to light showing it increased the risk of heart attack and stroke. Soon after, doubts were raised about the safety of two other popular medications on the market -- Celebrex and Bextra -- and, most recent, the over-the-counter pain reliever Aleve.
In each case the products had been approved by FDA and were already in the hands of consumers. Concerns had been raised before about a lax approach to adverse reports that arrive after a drug is on the market. As more families are impacted by problematic prescription drugs, the calls for change in after-market testing and tracking -- and perhaps at the FDA itself -- can only get louder.
The FDA gets part of its funding from fees paid by the drug companies, an arrangement that sets up both the potential for and appearance of financial conflict of interest. The funding structure was meant to put more resources into the agency with the aim of speeding drug approval. The FDA has been loudly criticized in the past for foot dragging on drug approvals, hurting those who the need the drugs. The agency's problems, therefore, are not entirely of its own making and Congress likely will have to step in and decide if the FDA should be funded in a different way.
This is not an excuse available to the National Institutes of Health, however, where there appears to be significant financial conflicts of interest among some of the researchers. Individual scientists allegedly have been taking money from the drug companies and profiting from the same drugs they are researching. An interim report delivered early in December by Raynard Kington, NIH's deputy director, acknowledged these problems.
Perhaps the biggest difficulty is not the action of any individual or even of an agency. Rather, it is the growing impression that science, at least at the federal level, cannot be trusted. The public has put faith in science precisely because the code of scientists and the rigors of peer review are supposed to ensure testable facts come before any other consideration.
Whether because of the greedy actions of individuals or the calculated policy of an administration, that trust is being chipped away. Once gone, it would be nearly impossible to restore it and the ability of the nation to choose wisely in matters of science would be irreparably damaged.
--
E-mail: [email protected]
