Making a difference

Abstract

Most readers will be familiar with the controversy surrounding the Bush Administration's use of science in decision making. The allegations, originating primarily from Democrats and interest groups, but also from some scientists, involve manipulating the composition of review panels, pressuring agencies to change report language, and devising a federal peer review policy that would obstruct dissemination of agency-produced science. The Administration, led by the President's Science Advisor Dr John Marburger, has strenuously denied these charges, countering that they rely heavily on science in their decision making. Many researchers are concerned that, in the ensuing arguments, politics have overshadowed the real goal, namely to ensure that policy is based on the best available scientific information and that the agencies continue to be a trusted source of science. Yet, recent evidence suggests that if the science community comes together and speaks out strongly with one voice, we can help ensure that this goal is achieved. Last fall, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued proposed Peer Review Guidelines. Ostensibly, these sought to standardize and strengthen the peer review process for federal agency science which might have important policy implications. However, many of the provisions within the new Guidelines raised serious concerns. For example, in an effort to exclude scientists with a conflict of interest, the OMB proposed removing from review panels those researchers who had a “relationship” with the agency, either because they had received or were seeking grant money in any form from that agency, or because they had performed reviews for the agency in the past. This was based on the rationale that a scientist with such connections would feel pressured to come to the conclusion that the agency wanted. The OMB did not acknowledge that agency-funded scientists are often the most knowledgeable about specific problems or ecosystems relevant to that agency and that their exclusion could lower the quality of the review. The first priority of peer review should be to engage the most credible and experienced scientists; the proposed exclusions would have had the opposite result. The Guidelines raised concerns across the scientific community, prompting critical comments from many individual scientists as well as a broad range of scientific groups, including the National Academies of Science, the American Public Health Association, and the Ecological Society of America. The OMB received a total of 187 comments, most of which called for increased programmatic flexibility and less restrictive conflict of interest rules. What may have tipped the balance was that the science community presented a united front, with many different disciplines weighing in with similar comments. On April 15, the OMB made tax day a little brighter by issuing a drastically revised version of its Guidelines, in which nearly all the main issues had been addressed. For example, scientists who win peer-reviewed, competitive grants from an agency are no longer considered to have a conflict of interest and the new Guidelines also allow greater flexibility in agency implementation. Although there are still points of contention – for instance, the OMB, a part of the Executive Office of the President and a fundamentally political entity, has given itself too large a role in oversight of peer review – overall, the revised proposed Guidelines show a marked improvement, which bodes well for the promotion of strong science within the agencies in the future. The fact that the OMB has demonstrated a willingness to be responsive to the concerns of scientists should serve as a wake up call to the scientific community. It is clear that when scientists are united and publicly voice their concerns, they can make a difference. Many of the disputes involving science have been partisan or driven by interest groups, yet scientists still maintain a measure of credibility that is unique in the policy world these days. Bringing this influence to bear on scientific issues can act as an important counterbalance to the current trend towards the politicization of science. The science wars will undoubtedly heat up during the run up to the November election and other important issues will require input from scientists. For example, there is a proposal in Congress that will mandate just this type of prescriptive peer review for science done under the Endangered Species Act. It would also require that the US Fish and Wildlife Service favor empirical data over modeling results when making decisions under the Act. This raises the same concerns as the OMB's proposed Guidelines and will require an equally strong response from the scientific community. Scientists are uniquely placed to speak on this type of issue and it is vital that they should be heard. The lesson from the Peer Review Guidelines is that doing so really can make a difference. Maggie Smith, Policy Analyst, Ecological Society of America