By Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.
Posted: Sunday, September 22, 2002

LETTER
Publication Date: September 22, 2002

A recent Washington Post article argues that a growing cadre of critics are charging the Bush Administration with playing politics in its recent replacement of Clinton-era participants serving on several major scientific advisory committees.

These committees guide, among other things, public health and environmental policy. Disgruntled scientists, some of whom have recently learned that they themselves are being terminated, bitterly contend that the turnover on committees has been excessive and that replacements are individuals "handpicked" by the President's team to assure compatibility with the administration's agenda.

Worse, these dissenters argue, many of these "handpicked" members have "well-known connections" with the very chemical companies they are supposed to be regulating.

The prevailing view among environmentalists is that seats on federal health advisory panels should be denied to all scientists who have worked for or consulted with industry. On the surface, it appears that these critics simply want to keep what they see as the industrial foxes from getting into the regulatory chicken coop.

But in reality, they believe that there is no such thing as legitimate opposition to any proposed environmental/health protection program — and that those who do oppose such regulations are by definition representing the interests of industry (which is always inherently a bad thing) and thus should be excluded.

During the last 40 years, debates about health and the environment have intensified. Advocates of environmental regulation, such as the banning of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals, have managed to dismiss their opposition not with science but with innuendo. Scientists who publicly defend agricultural chemicals and dismiss links between trace synthetic chemicals (such as PCBs or dioxin) and ill health are attacked not on the scientific merits but on alleged "connections" or "sympathies" to industry. As such scientists have been excluded from federal advisory panels — a very effective strategy for environmentalists because it ensures that only their views are heard — scientific debate has been stifled. Federal decision makers have been deprived of the expertise of some of the nation's most qualified, experienced scientists — simply because they have worked for or consulted for corporations during their careers.

These arguments are flawed. The reality is that every administration gradually replaces staff and advisers from the previous one. So of course the appointees were "handpicked" — based on their credentials to advise on policy. Should the administration simply keep Clinton appointees in place — or find their own new advisers by lottery?

The President's critics (including a public health professor who himself was among those let go) give these examples of nominees with alleged conflicts of interest meriting disqualification as federal advisers:

A former head of a professional toxicology group that received funding from the chemical industry.

A former Virginia secretary of natural resources who "fought against environmental regulation."

An internationally known and respected scientist who "has made a career countering environmentalists' claims of links between pollutants and cancer."

These folks, critics imply, should have been excluded from consideration as national advisers because — well, they just have the wrong point of view (i.e. different from the critics').

But then, the government would have been denied some critical expertise. An experienced regulatory toxicologist would bring valuable insights and knowledge to any discussion of health and the environment. The former Virginia administrator likely fought environmental regulations because they were based on junk science and politically driven agendas. And the renowned scientist drew her conclusions because there is not an iota of evidence that trace levels of natural or synthetic chemicals in the environment contribute to the causation of human cancer.

What the environmental camp really objects to is not the industry connections of these panelists. They simply recoil at their professionally held views and thus want them eliminated from any advisory capacity.

But the Bush administration is doing things right. Its "handpicked" appointees will bring with them knowledge, perspective — and credibility.

Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health).

Source Notes:  
Philadelphia Inquirer