Proposed Peer-Review Rule Calls Academicians Biased

File photo Scientists are debating the implications of a proposed new set of rules requiring federal agencies to consult outside scientists systematically when revising regulations. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) says that the "peer-review" requirements are meant to "further engage the scientific community in the regulatory process." Under the draft rules, independent scientists must review significant amendments to any federal agency rule, which includes amendments that carry an annual impact of $100 million (US) or more. Some fear, however, that the proposal has a built-in trapdoor that will drop many academic scientists out of the process of formulating scientific regulations: Anyone receiving government agency funds is considered tainted when it comes to serving as a peer reviewer for that agency. The suggestion has some academics up in arms. "They are trying to get university scientists out of the picture here," says David Michaels, research professor and epidemiologist in the departments of occupational and environmental health and epidemiology at the George Washington University School of Public Health, Washington, DC. Michaels served as Department of Energy assistant secretary for environment, safety, and health in the Clinton Administration. Public funding through government sources is the mainstay of many academic laboratories. The proposed peer-review regulation could muzzle almost every scientist who has chosen to work in the university setting and live off research grants rather than off the bounty of industry, say critics such as Michaels. The idea of peer review in government action has a long and honorable past, involving contributions of expertise by thousands of volunteer scientists. But, White House rule makers put grants from federal agencies on a par with industry funding, when it comes to bias. "It might be thought that scientists employed or funded by an agency could feel pressured to support what they perceive to be the agency's regulatory position, first in developing the science, and then in peer reviewing it," says OMB's explanation of the regulation. The draft rule requires that those selecting independent peer reviewers consider whether a scientist is receiving or seeking public funding in the form of a contract or research grant from the agency. Financial interests, that is, industry money, matter only if they are connected to the specific matter at issue. Therefore, an EPA-funded academic would be presumed biased, whereas an industry-funded scientist is in the clear, unless he or she has a personal financial stake in the specific subject matter of the agency action. The head of a private group that provides resources to government scientists defends the regulations. "Notwithstanding the concern about industry money, agencies are manipulating studies to reach a predetermined political conclusion," says Jeffrey Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. "This will be much more difficult under these regs. Academicians asking critical questions that have to be answered on the record have the potential to be an amazingly positive ventilating force." OMB is taking comments on the proposed rule until mid-December. Peg Brickley (pegbrickley@hotmail.com) is a freelance writer in Philadelphia. function sendData() { document.frm.pathName.value = location.pathname; result = false if (document.frm.score[0].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[1].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[2].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[3].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[4].checked) result = true; if (!result) alert("Please select") return result; } .myradio{background-color : #94bee5} Please indicate on a 1 - 5 scale how strongly you would recommend this article to your colleagues? Not recommended 1 2 3 4 5 Highly recommended Please register your vote

Proposed Peer-Review Rule Calls Academicians Biased

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of