Evidence-based,
peer-reviewed science has served as a respected "gold standard"
for policy-making. As the examples below indicate, it increasingly appears
that, under the current administration, ideology and not science is driving
what ought to be objective, scientific processes.
Compelling
examples of this disturbing trend come especially from the field of reproductive
health, but the larger issue of scientific integrity and independence
transcends disciplines. Recent appointments to scientific panels- even
to peer-review panels established to assess the quality of research proposals-are
now being driven by political commitments to specific ideological perspectives.
Scientists have been pressured to make their findings fit political objectives,
while scientific conclusions inconsistent with pre-determined political
positions have been dismissed.
In
the United States academic freedom has long meant that scientists have
had the independence to pursue and publish their research, regardless
of whether their findings agree with the political opinions of those in
public office. This scientific freedom of speech is an important contributor
to America's scientific and technological excellence, which serves as
a model worldwide.
When
scientific investigation has shown the need for policy change-such as
regulations to decrease children's exposure to lead, for example-high-quality
scientific evidence in the context of medical and scientific consensus
has played an important role in the development of public policy. Sound,
science-driven policy requires transparency in government decision-making,
an emphasis on well-credentialed, highly qualified scientific panels,
and a respect for scientific consensus-standards which appear to be increasingly
under threat.
"I
don't think any administration has penetrated so deeply into the advisory
committee structure as this one, and I think it matters. If you start
picking people by their ideology instead of their scientific credentials,
you are inevitably reducing the quality of the advisory group."
Donald
Kennedy, past president of Stanford University and editor of Science,
in the Los Angeles Times, December 23, 2002
The
scientific community is comprised of individuals with differing opinions
and beliefs. It is the very nature of science to be contested. However,
even when there is disagreement, scientists remain committed to the integrity
of the scientific process, the value of peer-review, and the need for
transparency. These core values are crucial for continued progress in
advancing scientific knowledge. Vigilance-and the courage to take action
when core values are undermined-will be necessary to safeguard them. It
is time for the scientific community to challenge the precedents set by
these examples and to demand that decision-makers follow principles necessary
to ensure that core values endure.
Petition
As
individuals, and as organizations representing health care providers,
researchers, and educators in the United States, the undersigned are writing
because we are deeply concerned about
the
adverse effect on our nation's health that will result from allowing
sectarian beliefs and political ideology rather than science and medical
evidence dictate public health policy, and
the
waste of scarce health resources when health and education programs
are funded on the basis of ideology rather than evidence of effectiveness.
Therefore,
we urge the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to adopt the
following principles to guide HHS agencies responsible for public health,
research, and public policy decisions including federal regulatory activities:
that
national public health policy and information provided by the federal
government should be based on principles of science and evidence-based
medicine;
that
public health policy, information, and evaluation, as well as funding
for public health services, education, and scientific and medical research,
should not be subjected to political or ideological censorship; and
that
scientific and public health recommendations and decisions should be
undertaken by expert scientists in each field, selected because of their
outstanding knowledge, experience, and professional accomplishments,
and not for their sectarian beliefs or political affiliations.
