Watchdog Group On Lookout For Misuse Of Science In Policymaking

Watchdog Group On Lookout For Misuse Of Science In Policymaking Author: KAREN YOUNG KREEGER, pp.6 Date: August 22,1994 Scientists from a variety of disciplines in industry, academia, government, and other areas are reportedly lending their support to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), an organization that has pledged to scrutinize the quality of scientific research that influences federal regulations. According to former New Mexico governor Garrey Carruthers, the founder and chairman of the ad-hoc coalition of scientists, academicians, industry representatives, and former public officials, TASSC aims to encourage policymakers to avoid or reconsider decisions based on "poorly executed research to justify preconceived policies." Carruthers says the Washington, D.C.-based group's main purpose is to advocate the basing of scientific studies affecting federal regulations--including those concerning food, agriculture, and the environment--on standard scientific principles rather than on political expediency or pressure. By this, he says, he means relying on research that is peer-reviewed, replicated, and unbiased. "So much of the crusade kind of science is [stated in] absolute truths," says Carruthers. "It's almost divine in nature. The crusaders never qualify their stuff. They never have it peer-reviewed and they never replicate their experiments." Among the efforts recently undertaken by Carruthers's group is a scientific challenge to advocacy groups opposed to the use of the growth hormone bovine somato-tropin in dairy cows, which has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). TASSC is also supporting FDA's sanctioning of the genetically engineered Flavr Savr tomato--which also has been facing strong opposition from some quarters. Carruthers says the coalition has made its views known through a variety of means--newspaper opinion articles, press releases and news conferences, speeches, and letter-writing campaigns directed at govern- ment officials. Carruthers says that TASSC has acquired about 550 statements of support, a third of which have come from scientists, since its launch last November. Backers of the coalition as well as outside observers say the group has the potential to provide scientists and policymakers at federal agencies with information that might not otherwise be brought to their attention when they formulate governmental regulations. However, this same group of supporters and observers has some reservations about a science-advocacy organization's involvement in politics. Jeff Davidson, executive director of the Pennsylvania Biotech- nology Association, a trade organization based in State College, Pa., says the coalition can make a useful contribution to policymakers and the general public because it emphasizes science, as opposed to economic or political interests, as criteria for decision-making. But, he adds, he would be concerned if the group were to begin addressing controversial issues on other than a scientific basis and, thereby, drift from its "original mission." Carruthers, governor of New Mexico from 1987 to 1990, says he started TASSC last year with the help of APCO Associates Inc., a Washington, D.C.-based public affairs firm, which is handling communications for the organization, among other administrative functions. APCO also provides some office space for the coalition's activities. Carruthers was a professor of agricultural economics at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces before entering politics in the early 1980s. He was also an assistant secretary at the Department of the Interior from 1981 to 1984. He says he founded the coalition because "it began to occur to me that science wasn't being used very often in public policy development. Most of this development was based more on emotion and vested interests than it was on scientific results." Since last November, he has sent out a letter of introduction to researchers and others explaining the goals and purpose of the coalition. In the letter, the recipients were invited to fill out a statement of support, which allowed TASSC to use the scientists' names on its list of backers. Carruthers says that the coalition currently has a list of about 180 scientists and academicians from a wide variety of disciplines to address specific scientific issues. About 130 of these 180 researchers--a group that has grown from about 30 scientists since the coalition's inception nine months ago, Carruthers says--work at universities and research centers, with the remainder coming from industry, consulting firms, government agencies, and advocacy groups. The list includes many scientists with high standing in their disciplines and a degree of public visibility, such as Bruce N. Ames, a professor of biochemistry at the University of California, Berkeley, and director of one of NIH's 18 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences-supported research centers. Also on the list are scientists from a wide range of industrial firms, including such biotechnology companies as Biosys in Palo Alto, Calif., and Mycogen Corp. in San Diego, and such giant companies as 3M Chemicals and General Motors. Thus far, according to coalition officials, funding for TASSC has come from individual donations from almost 125 researchers, businesses, and other supporters, ranging from tens of dollars to a few thousand dollars. Carruthers adds that at this point the coalition has no foundation support, but plans to seek this type of funding by the end of this year. For now, Carruthers is the coalition's only officer; however, he says, TASSC plans to form an executive committee and several working groups in the future, as the coalition grows and takes on more causes. So far, he says, the coalition has been operating generally on an "ad hoc" basis, taking on issues that are brought to its attention by various supporters. Indeed, most of the positions the organization has addressed have been on issues affecting many of TASSC's industrial backers, including chemical, biotech, agricultural, and petroleum companies. Coalition statements cite the Natural Resources Defense Council's study on Alar as an example of poor research leading to bad public policy. This 1989 study, along with a story on the television news program "60 Minutes," suggested that Alar, a plant-growth regulator used in the apple-growing industry, caused cancer in children. The resulting debate about whether Alar was a carcinogen or not--which Carruthers and others say was never demonstrated scientifically-- led to the banning of the substance. This decision, TASSC and other critics charge, caused unnecessary financial hardships to apple growers. In a recent TASSC newsletter, the organization announced the development of a "Bad Science News Alert" system that will "immediately" fax supporters news of "policy decisions based on unsound science." The key to identifying "unsound" science, says Carruthers, is to "look for scientists that talk in a particular way. A lot of bad scientists say: `I can prove to you that this product is dangerous to your health.' [Good] scientists qualify their claims. They say things like: `There's abundant evidence. The majority of the evidence supports. . . ' " Donald Stedman, Brainerd Phillipson Professor of Chemistry at the University of Denver, says that he decided to become involved with TASSC because "policymakers ought to be aware that they need good science. I think part of the problem is that they are not getting good science from their own bureaucrats who are themselves politicized." Stedman has written statements critical of government regulations on air quality and auto emissions for the coalition. For example, in a recent statement he said that "many scientific reasons exist for opposing EPA's [Environmental Protection Agency] mandate for the use of ethanol in the reformulated gasoline market," including a lack of scientific evidence that ethanol is cleaner than some other fuel products. Warren Cheston, director of external affairs for the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology in Philadelphia, is also among the scientists who have given their support to the coalition. He says the group's intended goals could be beneficial to such federal agencies as FDA, EPA, and the Department of Agriculture because these agencies regularly rely on scientific and technical data in formulating their policies. Some of the coalition's supporters caution, however, that to remain credible TASSC must maintain a clear balance among its many constituencies. Other researchers have chosen not to sign, citing doubts about the organization's ability to objectively look at the issues. Gary Comstock, an associate professor in the philosophy department and coordinator of the Bioethics Program at Iowa State University in Ames, says he was sent a letter inviting him to join TASSC, probably because he was a speaker at the Biotechnology Industry Organization's (BIO) Eighth International Biotechnology Meeting held in Toronto last May. He says he debated whether to join, but, after reading the letter and enclosed fact sheets, decided against it because "I was concerned that this group would turn out to be a front for pro-industry political activity and not a group in which both sides of the issues were represented." Although Wistar's Cheston says he is a proponent of the coalition's mission, he also says he would have to rethink his position if its leadership turned out to have a pre-set agenda. "If there's a political agenda, I suspect quite a few of us who joined will decide not to stay on because, as a scientist, one tries to avoid the political aspects of [policy-making]. It's not what we ought to be involved in. We ought to be involved in just providing information to the people who make those political and social decisions." But Stedman contends that one of the coalition's strengths is that "it has no specific backing from any particular well-heeled industry." He adds that TASSC cannot be self-supporting unless it gets money from parties on each side of an issue, "in order to be perceived to be holding a rather careful middle ground." And Carruthers maintains that the diversity of the people behind the coalition will prevent it from becoming single-minded. "It's a very diverse group, and that was intentional," he says. "We didn't want to be singled out as `the petroleum industry group' or `the farm group.' " He points out that letters of invitation to support the coalition were sent to researchers in a wide variety of disciplines, from physiology to philosophy. Government officials like Rob Brenner, director of the office of policy analysis and review in the office of air and radiation at EPA, say they welcome the open debate on policy issues that groups like the coalition foment, as long as both sides of an issue are aired. Brenner says EPA "is always having to make decisions [on environmental regulations] in the face of [scientific] uncertainty. Therefore, what science can do is narrow the uncertainty." He says that groups like the coalition can be helpful by suggesting ways to reduce the scientific uncertainty surrounding policy issues such as setting air- and water-quality standards and suggesting whether it makes sense for policymakers to act in the face of this incertitude. He adds, however, that it is not helpful when "science groups claim that if you just get the science right it will tell you what to do." For more information on the coalition, contact Carruthers at The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, P.O. Box 18432, Washington, D.C. 20036; (800) 369-6608. Fax: (800) 251-5253.

Watchdog Group On Lookout For Misuse Of Science In Policymaking

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of