The Chronicle: Colloquy Live Transcript

Questioning the Honesty of White House Science

Friday, March 5, at 1 p.m., U.S. Eastern time

A report issued last month by 60 prominent scientists, educators, and Nobel laureates said the Bush administration has deliberately manipulated or ignored research findings affecting federal regulations when the findings have been at odds with White House goals. Has President Bush politicized science, or is the report an example of partisan politics, as the administration charges?

On issues including global climate change, obesity, and ergonomics, scientists have argued that the Bush administration has repeatedly called existing research uncertain or inadequate in order to justify not taking action to correct the problems. The scientists see the president's insistence on more research as a delaying tactic, motivated by his desire to protect business and industry from the costs and changes suggested by scientific findings.

While scientists have tangled with previous presidents over specific policies, several analysts of federal science policy say the Bush administration's actions appear unprecedented in scope. Do academic scientists risk being put on the sidelines of important policy debates? Do the examples cited by the scientists add up to a pattern of political interference with science? Or is the administration just raising reasonable objections to flawed science?

» How Sound Is Bush's 'Sound Science'? (3/5/2004)

John H. Marburger III, director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, is President Bush's chief science adviser. Before he came to Washington, he was director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory and president of the State University of New York at Stony Book.

Mr. Marburger will respond to questions on Friday, March 5, at 1 p.m., U.S. Eastern time. Questions and comments are welcome and may be posted now.

A transcript of the chat follows.

Jeffrey Brainard (Moderator):
Hello everyone. I'm Jeff Brainard and I'm a reporter for The Chronicle -- I'll be moderating today's chat. Thanks to all of you who have already sent in questions. Keep 'em coming! Our guest today is John H. Marburger III, science adviser to President Bush and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Welcome, Dr. Marburger. Okay, let's get started.

Question from James Green, Duquesne University:
Dr. Marburger, First of all, thanks for agreeing to appear on this forum and take on a subject -- the politicization of science -- in which nearly everything you say and every action you take is criticized as such. My questions are regarding the source of the report, the Union of Concerned Scientists. While the media has largely portrayed them as merely another Washington advocacy group, they have a long record of taking left-wing positions on everything from the climate change to the war in Iraq to biotechnology. That said, it seems to me you have not been very adamant about pointing this out. Why? And secondly, do you agree with my opinion that, even if everything in the report was 100 percent defensible, UCS is in no position be complaining about the politicization of science?

John H. Marburger III:
I am not attacking UCS on the basis of their ideology, to which they are entitled. I believe the UCS document is deeply flawed in its substance, and that is what concerns me.

Question from Stephen Miles Sacks, Ph.D., SCIPOLICY-The Journal of Science and Health Policy:
The Science Advisor to the President is supposed to be cognizant of the trends and nuances of science as well as the progress of the several fields. Therefore, why is there such an open division between the White House Science Office and the cadre of US scientists?

John H. Marburger III:
I believe my understanding of the "trends and nuances of science" and its progress is shared widely within the scientific community. I have enjoyed a good working relationship with the science and engineering communities, and will continue to reach out to them regarding their concerns.

Question from Susanne Moser, Ph.D., National Center for Atmospheric Research:
Dear Dr. Marburger - I am a climate change impacts expert, and I have a question to you regarding the burden of proof on scientific issues. Let's take the climate change issue. As you well know, the most credible scientific approach is always to prove that a hypothesis is wrong, because it is ultimately impossible to prove anything right. Climate scientists have spent years to decades now trying to accumulate proof that climate change is occurring, and indeed they have. Meanwhile the Bush Administration continues to find some minor unproven aspect, some remaining uncertainty to question the existence of the entire problem. Why is the burden of proof on scientists to show that global warming exists? Why are you not conducting studies that prove that it does NOT exist? If you could indeed conduct a credible, peer-reviewed study and come to that conlusion, I believe you would give credibility to the Administration's policy stance and demonstrate an appropriate use of science. I challenge you to do so.

John H. Marburger III:
Your assumption about the position of the Administration on climate change is wrong. This Administration does not question the existence of climate change, nor does it deny a link between climate change and human activity. Please read the President's speeches on this issue, particularly those on June 11, 2001, and February 14, 2002. They are available on the White House website. Among other things the President said: "Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world." "...we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming" "The policy challenge is to act in a serious and sensible way, given the limits of our knowledge. While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change." Everyone interested in climate change policy should read these speeches.

Question from Payam Minoofar, UCLA:
What questions did the Administration pose to you during the selection process?

John H. Marburger III:
As you probably know, I am a registered Democrat. I have never been politically active, and did not expect to be asked to serve as Science Advisor to the President. When I visited the White House prior to my appointment, I found an atmosphere of support for the role of science in policy. I have never been asked any questions that could be regarded as "litmus tests."

Comment from William M. Epstein/University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
Mr. Green's comment is offensive and obsequious. The provenance of UCS's report is besides the point. Its substance is the issue. Red baiting is a very unacademic tactic. Bravo for Mr. Marburger's comments. However, he still needs to detail his position.

Question from Dave Guston, Rutgers University:
Is there any pattern to the Bush administration's treatment of technical analysis, which seems to be similar among areas of science (UCS report), economics (O'Neill's account), and intelligence (WMDs)?

John H. Marburger III:
The U.S. Government performs a massive amount of technical analysis, both within government agencies and under contract with universities and the private sector. From my knowledge of this activity, the main similarities are insistence on quality of performers and products, which are subject to extensive expert review and evaluation.

Question from Jeffrey Brainard:
The White House Office of Management and Budget has proposed guidelines directing federal agencies to conduct peer-reviewed analysis of scientific findings used to develop significant new regulations. The guidelines suggest that academic researchers' receipt of peer-reviewed grants from an agency might bias them in conducting such reviews, and that as a result they may be excluded from peer reviews of regulations in some cases. Can the administration describe examples or the prevalence of this kind of bias? And if the goal is proper balance of scientific viewpoints on peer-review panels, isn't this already required by existing regulations on the make-up of federal scientific advisory committees?

John H. Marburger III:
The issue here is not primarily balance, it is credibility. The credibility of reviews depends utterly on the credibility of the reviewers, and the issue of who pays the reviewers is widely regarded as important to such credibility. OMB's proposal was not meant to exclude qualified researchers from participating on peer review panels for regulatory science. It was meant to ensure transparency and uniformity of practice across agencies, and to promote the best practices. Many agencies already have practices that are consistent with the OMB proposal. OMB is currently digesting the 187 comments on the proposed rule that were submitted during the comment period last year.

Question from Eric D. Kupferberg, Div. Med. Ethics, Harvard Med. School:
Many of the examples cited in the reports by the Union of Concerned Scientists and by Representative Waxman are instances where the President and Secretary Thompson disagree with the "values" or "politics" associated with certain federally funded biomedical research efforts. The scientific community clearly objects to what they see as "political" interference in peer review bodies or advisory committees. Given this sentiment, in what arenas can the Administration make its case about the role of "values" in biomedical research?

John H. Marburger III:
An example of the relevance of values in biomedical research is the proposition that all research should be conducted with respect for the rights of human subjects. In general, scientists work very hard to prevent personal opinions about what their observations mean from coloring their conclusions. Policy makers expect scientists, engineers, and other technical experts to provide objective information about the consensus of their communities regarding technical subjects. Given such information, policy makers can take other input into account when making their final decisions.

Question from Jason West, U. Minnesota:
You accused the writers of the report of being "conspiracy theorists," according to a "Chronicle" article. Are you accusing all of the very well-respected scientists who have signed this statment as also being conspiracy theorists?

John H. Marburger III:
The Union of Concerned Scientists took pains to explain that the signatories of the accompanying statement did not bear responsibility for the report. It is my understanding that some or all of the scientists did not have the report available to them when they signed the statement.

Question from Jeffrey Brainard:
You�ve suggested that scientists signed the Union of Concerned Scientists report partly because the administration has established exacting standards of performance and accountability from science-oriented federal agencies and because of tighter increases in federal financing for research. Would you elaborate?

John H. Marburger III:
This is a management oriented Administration with objectives spelled out in the President's Management Agenda. More emphasis is placed on quality of agency products, documentation, and evaluation of performance. Offices like OSTP work more closely with agencies to ensure quality in reports and regulations, and we frequently reach out beyond agencies to seek expert advice from the National Academies and other independent expert bodies. These and related actions require agencies to do things differently, which always increases tension. I don't think federal financing of science has much to do with the issues we are discussing here.

Question from Paul Higgins, UC Berkeley and scienceinpolicy.org:
Dear Dr. Marburger, You said that the UCS report uses isolated and unrepresentative examples. However, the administration uses semantics to disguise environmentally damaging policies with misleading program names like "clear skies", which allows increases in the emission of most air pollutants relative to the 1990 Clean Air Act, and "healthy forests", which allows more logging in remote areas. Don't these names demonstrate that the President Bush's misuse of science is pervasive and a fundamental component of the administration's approach? Thank you

John H. Marburger III:
I don't think the titles are misleading (Please read the President's speeches). The initiatives you cite cover a wide spectrum of issues for which the titles seem to me to be very appropriate.

Comment from Lewis M Branscomb, Harvard University, emeritus:
Thank you for your answer to the question about the previous positions of the UCS. I want to make clear that I know almost nothing about UCS, and I did not see their full report, only a brief summary when I signed the statement, which I read very carefully. I applaud you for addressing the issues, not the UCS. As noted in the Science article I took issue with one part of the longer report.

Question from Don F. - federal research grantee:
Dr. Marbuger, I listed to a radio interview with you yesterday and I thought your comments on the statement by our respected scientific colleagues were disingenuous and condescending.

You characterized the scientists� statement of misunderstanding the body of evidence that has been widely and publicly reported on. You try to tie the scientists� statement to the UCS report so that you can discredit that, but by doing so, it is you who are misunderstanding the scientists� message:

The statement points to a pattern of behavior. As specialized scientists, it�s true that we can�t speak to interference in every field, but we can certainly speak to the interference in our own. And when we compare notes, we see that it is not isolated. The statement by more than 60 prominent scientists is the product of that collaboration, and by dismissing it, you are providing yet another example of subjecting scientific expertise to political motives. I would like to know why you are attempting to �spin� this instead of fixing it.

John H. Marburger III:
I am not trying to "spin" these issues, I am trying to understand them and respond to them, as in today's forum. The problem I have here is that every time a specific example is cited, I find that there is more to it than the UCS document presents. This is true in nearly every case. The statement and the UCS document are clearly based on these examples. If you have specific information about "interference" please share it with me.

Jeffrey Brainard (Moderator):
We're now about halfway through our hour-long chat with Dr. Marburger. If you have a question you would like to ask, now would be a good time to send it. We've received a lot of questions but unfortunately we may not get to them all.

Question from Heather Leslie, Oregon State University:
In the Chronicle article today, you were quoted as saying the president's views on climate change have been "persistently and seriously misrepresented." Could you please explain why the Bush administration has not joined the UK and other allies in actively changing regulations and incentives to reduce C02 emmissions, when the US and international scientific communities, along with the energy and insurance industries, have acknowledged the reality of climate change and taken action?

John H. Marburger III:
The reality of climate change does not imply a unique governmental response. Regulations and incentives have legal, economic, and social implications that must be taken into account. This Administration has decided that regardless of regulations or incentives, new technologies will be necessary that produce and use energy with little or no CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. That is why the President has proposed major investments in things like hydrogen fuel, zero carbon emission power plant research, and nuclear fusion research, as well as non-carbon producing energy sources.

Comment from Eric D. Kupferberg, Div. Med. Ethics, Harvard Med. Sch.:
Your answer to my earlier question indicated that scientists were responsible for providing "objective information" and the consensus opinion on technical subjects. Policy makers, for their part, had the option of taking this information into consideration (or information from outside sources) when "making their final decisions." Your reply suggests that the biomedical research community should be shielded from _ANY_ outside influence. The present administration might simply avoid the current criticisms by choosing NOT to act on certain research findings, rather than influence the process of ongoing studies.

Question from Tim Beardsley, American Institute of Biological Sciences:
Could you please cite a few specific examples of errors in the UCS report?

John H. Marburger III:
Deletion of climate material in the EPA report on the environment: This report was in an interagency review process in which many comments were received about this section. In view of the fact that another much longer and more complete document devoted to climate change was forthcoming (which was also receiving extensive interagency review), the proposed climate material was replaced by a reference to the forthcoming report. The UCS says "many sources suspect" the White House suppressed an EPA report on health impacts of mercury because it conflicts with a policy on coal fired power plants. I can find no evidence to support this, other than a long delay in clearing the report. The finding on health impacts was widely known. (Since I am going to release additional information about all the allegations, and because I am running out of time to answer other questions, I am going to stop with just these two. I have made public statements about several additional instances.)

Question from Roger Geertz Gonzalez, Barry U., small private university:
Dr. Marburger: Why would 60 Nobel Laureates, scientists, and other climate experts question the veracity of Washington's climate research? For political gain which is dubious since these are mainly scientists? Or, is the White House Administration truly pulling the strings on ITS climate experts? Or, are both sides just plain wrong?

John H. Marburger III:
I did not read the statement signed by the scientists as "questioning the veracity of Washington's climate research." I believe the quality of climate research is very high. The issue is What governmental response is implied by this research? There is disagreement on this because the response is not uniquely determined by the science.

John H. Marburger III:
We've run out of time, but I will continue to answer a few more questions. This Colloquy has been a good opportunity for me to hear the kind of things people are concerned about. Thanks to The Chronicle of Higher Education for giving me this opportunity to respond.

Question from Lewis Branscomb, professor emeritus, Harvard University:
How can the current rift between a number of senior members of the scientific community and the administration best be healed? Should your office not issue a clear statement of the government's policy regarding the influence of poltical views in science advice to government? Both sides would then agree that your office, and not the press, is the best venue for resolving assertions that this policy might have been transgressed. Your findings might be reviewed by PCAST [the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology] to increase acceptance of your judgements in the scientific community. Members of the science community who might have influence would then agree that this process, and not the media, would be the best venue for resolving complaints.

John H. Marburger III:
Thank you for these suggestions. Communication is always the best approach when misunderstandings occur. I have stated the Administration's position in public testimony, most recently to the Senate VA-HUD committee. I said that this Administration believes policies should be made with the best and most complete information possible and expects its appointees to conduct their business consistent with that belief. I will continue to make this as clear as I can, but it should be obvious. Science advice should not reflect political views. Public officials who make policy need to be able to distinguish between opinion and science, and the policy process is not well served by mixing the two. I will certainly make information widely available about issues of concern, including to members of PCAST, an independent non-governmental advisory council.

Question from Russell Durbin, Ohio State University:
It's hard to take seriously any of the president's views on science since he confesses skepticism about evolution, one of the bedrock theories of modern science. If he is willing to bend his view of biology to accommodate his religious ideology, how can we be confident about his approach to pollution, global warming, etc?

John H. Marburger III:
Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology. Much of the work supported by the National Institutes of Health depends heavily on the concepts of evolution. President Bush has supported the largest increases in the NIH budget in history.

Comment from Linda Wallace, U. of Oklahoma:
Policy makers seem to be ignoring the data that indicate climate change and environmental degradation are "real" and are accelerating. Environmental economists such as Robert Costanza point out that the long-term environmental costs are very great. Swiss Re has just altered its policies in insurance payments for environmental disasters and encourages government agencies to take global warming, etc. into consideration for long-term planning.

Question from Dave Guston, Rutgers University:
How can one ever sever the ideology of a group of scientists from their scientific stance? One of the most comprehensive efforts ever made, the IPCC, which was created to be sensitive to issues of both sound science and political representation, is rejected by the Bush administration.

If President Bush asked you to determine the consensus of the scientific community around a new scientific issue, how would you do it? How would you (or Pres. Bush) determine if you got the right answer?

John H. Marburger III:
I do think it is possible to consider scientific issues in an objective way, and I do not think ideology is always present in science. The real problem is that science does not answer every question you would like to ask of it. Science is at its core a method for continually improving our understanding of nature. The "facts" of science do not speak unambiguously for themselves, but must be interpreted in a conceptual framework. This framework is not complete, and may never be. In some areas of science it is solid, in others it is still being erected. Issues in environmental and health science are particularly complex, and it is here that we have the greatest controversy. These are also areas of great importance to society, and we expect emotions to run high about causes and effects and actions to protect health and environment. Scientists can help by making the boundary as clear as possible between what is known and what is not. In general, I regard the committees of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council as the gold standard for scientific advice, and I always urge that their advice be considered very seriously in any policy context.

John H. Marburger III:
I'm done. Thanks for all the good questions. Sorry to leave some unanswered.

Jeffrey Brainard (Moderator):
We have had a large response today and many more questions were submitted than Dr. Marburger could answer in the time available. Thank you, Dr. Marburger, and thanks to everyone who participated. Good day.