25 Jun 2008: Analysis

After Bush, Restoring Science
to Environmental Policy

The Bush administration has been widely criticized for placing politics over science when it comes to environmental policy-making. The next president must act to reverse that trend.

by chris mooney

Over the 7½ years of the Bush administration, it's hard to name a major U.S. government regulatory agency that hasn't seen some type of scandal involving science. From the Environmental Protection Agency to the Bureau of Land Management to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we've heard repeated complaints from government scientists who say their work on environmental issues has been inappropriately edited by political appointees, that they themselves have been muzzled, and that their agencies have put out rank misinformation to the public.

To get a sense of just how extensive such problems have been, consider the findings of a 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which sought to survey federally employed climate researchers across several agencies. Almost half of the 300-odd survey respondents felt pressured to eliminate words like “climate change” or “global warming” from documents or communications; a similar number perceived inappropriate changes to their work that altered its scientific meaning.

And that's just climate scientists. Surveys of researchers at the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service — whose work underlies implementation of the Endangered Species Act — found similar complaints. And recently, when unionized Environmental Protection Agency scientists backed out of their cooperation agreement with the agency's political leadership, one cited reason was that lately the agency has ignored “its own Principles of Scientific Integrity whenever political direction from other federal entities or private sector interests so direct.”

It will fall to the next president to repair the relationship between government-employed scientists and the nation's political leadership. And since most of the assaults on science during the Bush administration have occurred at pressure points where scientific information feeds into the regulatory process, the next administration must strive more broadly to bolster the role of science in environmental and other types of agency decision-making, so that the best available information once again drives policy.

Both major presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, appear to take this matter seriously. Obama, who has accused the Bush Administration of ignoring or distorting data to shape its decisions on science-related issues, has said his policies would be based on “evidence and facts.” As for McCain, in his role as chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, he has eviscerated the Bush administration on matters of science. In one particularly sharp exchange in 2005, McCain upbraided an administration representative for failing to produce a required government report on global warming.

So assuming the next president aims not only to restore scientific integrity to the federal government, but also to restore morale and functionality at places like the Environmental Protection Agency, here's a brief overview of some of the types of changes that need to be implemented.

Let's begin where the Bush science scandals themselves did — with scientific advisory committees to federal agencies. As early as 2002, complaints began to emerge suggesting these little known expert bodies, which have been dubbed the “Fifth Branch” of American government and which advise agencies on anything from the dangers of various environmental chemicals to the risks of particulate air pollution, were being tilted politically to favor the interests of the administration's supporters and allies. To name just one highly publicized example, in 2002 the Bush administration shook up the membership of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel that advises the agency on how to protect children from lead poisoning. The administration named to the panel several scientists with industry connections, who could be expected to oppose stronger protective standards.

To address cases like this, the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which governs such committees, must be revised and more strictly enforced. A 1970s “good government” statute designed to ensure openness, balance, and transparency, of late FACA has been repeatedly circumvented through the formation of committees not subject to it — the now-infamous Bush-Cheney energy task force being a prime example. And as Rena Steinzor, a law professor at the University of Maryland and president of the Center for Progressive Regulation, notes, “The problem is not just that they put these panels together outside of FACA, outside of that statutory protection.” Additional issues arise when it comes to ensuring that advisory committees formed under FACA aren't rife with conflicts of interest. The law allows the granting of “waivers” that let potentially conflicted scientists serve anyway, and this has been widely abused. “The disclosures are late, never publicized, and conflicts are waived all the time,” notes Steinzor.

While the next administration cannot itself reform FACA, it can ask Congress to do so. Meanwhile, a new administration could pledge that all of its advisory committees will be formed under FACA and that any conflict-of-interest waivers will be made public (or not made at all).

To ensure the proper translation of science into environmental decision-making, the next president must reconsider the use of the Data Quality Act, a bite-sized piece of legislation slipped into a 2001 appropriations bill by Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) and which, as interpreted by the Bush administration, has grown into a handy device for misusing science to upend regulation. The act allows interested parties to file complaints whenever the government “disseminates” scientific information they find objectionable. This makes it a key tool for gumming up the regulatory works by questioning the validity of government science — an increasingly common industry tactic employed on issues ranging from climate change to the regulation of mercury pollution.

And it's not just the Data Quality Act itself: In a legally dubious move, the administration has used the act as the foundation for an unprecedented government-wide system of peer review for information that feeds into regulatory decision-making. Peer review sounds like a good thing — until you canvass the science world's objections to this particular form of it. In essence, the new peer review system turns out to be more about slowing down government action than ensuring scientific accuracy. And it has already impaired agency function, notes George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, author of the new book Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health (Oxford, 2008).

For example, Michaels cites the National Toxicology Program’s “Report on Carcinogens,” which is supposed to be released every two years. But the last such report — the 11th Report on Carcinogens — appeared in January of 2005, meaning the next edition is already more than a year late. If you examine the review process for that report, it's clear the new peer review rules are to blame.

The next administration, then, ought to re-evaluate the Data Quality Act and government-wide peer review system with the following principle in mind: When it comes to using science to support regulatory decision-making, the perfect can easily become the enemy of the good. Government agencies rarely have ideal data or studies at their disposal; much of the information they rely upon cannot, by its very nature, undergo rigorous academic peer review. But agencies can rarely wait for better information to take action — because if they do, more people (or more endangered species) might be harmed. The Data Quality Act and peer review system push us in the direction of ever-more scrutiny of science that might be used to support government regulation, when what we actually need is the opposite: Federal agencies that are limber, less burdened, more free to act promptly in the public interest.

At the same time, the next president and his cabinet officials must strive to ensure that scientists working at these federal agencies not only get treated fairly, but can feel confident their work gets taken seriously and plays the proper role in government decision-making. This is not merely a question of propriety, but one of morale. After all, what scientist would want to work for an agency where, to use a recent example from the Fish and Wildlife Service, a political appointee named Julie MacDonald was, according to the Interior Department's inspector general, “heavily involved with editing, commenting on, and reshaping the Endangered Species Program's scientific reports from the field”?

To help prevent such abuse, the next administration should put in place a disclosure system whereby agency science is made public as soon as the scientists are finished with it — not after the political appointees take a red pen to it. The administration should also pledge to address the many other cases we've seen in recent years in which political appointees and government scientists have clashed — for instance, cases where scientists have been denied the ability to speak to the media, or have seen press releases about their research heavily edited, or not released at all. What our environmental regulatory system truly needs is more independence from political sectors of the executive branch, so scientists and other professionals can do their jobs without worrying about who might be offended or how their actions play politically.

When it comes to the role of science in environmental policy, then, the next administration should seek to solve the problems of the past by embracing two broad principles for the future. First, agencies must remain free to use the best science available to do their jobs promptly and effectively, rather than having to endlessly defend that science and have it repeatedly vetted. And second: Political appointees need to back off and let federal agency scientists — and agency professionals more generally — do their jobs with integrity and independence.

We need science in government more than ever before. Because the Bush administration represented such a big step backward in this arena, the next administration must take at least two steps forward just to catch up.

POSTED ON 25 Jun 2008 IN Climate Climate Energy Oceans Policy & Politics Policy & Politics Science & Technology Science & Technology Europe North America 


Thanks for highlighting this issue, Chris. Sadly, I fear the next administration will need to spend time fixing the current practices before being able to do anything positive of their own. I only hope they have the political will to do so, because the current policies can't be maintained without severe environmental costs.

On a more immediate front (hopefully) the Union of Concerned Scientists and others have been leading an effort to get scientists specifically recognized in whistleblower protection language now being finalized in Congress. Agency scientists were in the House-passed version, but not the Senate-passed version. It is important that the conference committee keeps them in the final bill specifically.
Posted by Jon on 01 Jul 2008

I would like someone to ask 'why". We understand that this administration has been anti-science from the get-go, but it's not clear what they've gained from their actions and attitudes. Is there some nefarious purpose here to subvert the will of the people and undermine the rule of law?
Posted by "W" on 03 Jul 2008

Great article on one of the most insidious threats we face -- the distortion and censorship of the facts we need to guide environmental policy. Why is it that only one organization of scientists -- the UCS -- seems to be standing up to this threat? Isn't an attack on the integrity of science enough to rouse the entire scientific community to speak out?
Posted by Rob on 09 Jul 2008

The Bush years have been an environmental disaster that will probably take decades to recover from.
Posted by Fair Trade on 10 Jul 2008

Follow the money. Who contributes more to political campaigns, polluters or non-polluters, and who benefits financially from the lack of regulation?

As for the science per se, having once had the misfortune of being seated in close proximity to the future Maximum Leader of the Free World in a Yale lecture hall, I can vouch for the fact that he has less than half the intellectual curiosity of a sack of hammers.
Posted by CapitalClimate on 07 Aug 2008

Yes, I have heard at many places about the politicizing of the scientific matters. There has been some serious politics going on in Bush's administration. Now with Obama into administration he will has some work to do in this front.
Posted by Digestion on 10 Mar 2009

I look forward to the enhanced Data Quality Act to make it much more effective in our country, it is high time...
Posted by Mattress on 15 Mar 2009

Comments have been closed on this feature.
chris mooneyABOUT THE AUTHOR
Chris Mooney is author of The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. A contributing editor to Science Progress and senior correspondent for American Prospect, he blogs at The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.



What Pope Francis Should Say
In His Upcoming UN Address

Pope Francis will speak to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 25 about poverty, the environment, and sustainable development. In a Yale Environment 360 forum, seven leading thinkers on the environment and religion describe what they would like to hear the pope say.

Will the Paris Climate Talks
Be Too Little and Too Late?

At the upcoming U.N. climate conference, most of the world’s major nations will pledge to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But serious doubts remain as to whether these promised cuts will be nearly enough to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change.

Rachel Carson’s Critics Keep On,
But She Told Truth About DDT

More than half a century after scientist Rachel Carson warned of the dangers of overusing the pesticide DDT, conservative groups continue to vilify her and blame her for a resurgence of malaria. But DDT is still used in many countries where malaria now rages.

Natura 2000: EU Reserves Are
Facing Development Pressures

An astonishing 18 percent of the European Union’s land area is protected under a network of preserves known as Natura 2000. Now, at the urging of business interests and farmers, the EU is examining whether regulations on development in these areas should be loosened.

In Clash of Greens, a Case for
Large-Scale U.S. Solar Projects

Weaning the U.S. economy off fossil fuels will involve the wide deployment of utility-scale solar power. But for that to happen, the environmental community must resolve its conflict between clean energy advocates and those who regard solar farms as blights on the landscape.


MORE IN Analysis

How China and U.S. Became
Unlikely Partners on Climate

by orville schell
Amid tensions between the U.S. and China, one issue has emerged on which the two nations are finding common ground: climate change. Their recent commitments on controlling emissions have created momentum that could help international climate talks in Paris in December.

Will the Paris Climate Talks
Be Too Little and Too Late?

by fred pearce
At the upcoming U.N. climate conference, most of the world’s major nations will pledge to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But serious doubts remain as to whether these promised cuts will be nearly enough to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change.

Global Extinction Rates: Why
Do Estimates Vary So Wildly?

by fred pearce
Is it 150 species a day or 24 a day or far less than that? Prominent scientists cite dramatically different numbers when estimating the rate at which species are going extinct. Why is that?

Why the Fossil Fuel Divestment
Movement May Ultimately Win

by marc gunther
The fossil fuel divestment campaign has so far persuaded only a handful of universities and investment funds to change their policies. But if the movement can help shift public opinion about climate change, its organizers say, it will have achieved its primary goal.

Alien Islands: Why Killing Rats
Is Essential to Save Key Wildlife

by ted williams
Alien rats introduced by ships are decimating populations of birds and other wildlife on islands from the sub-Antarctic to California. Effective programs to eradicate the rats are underway but are encountering opposition from animal activists and some green groups.

Resilience: A New Conservation
Strategy for a Warming World

by jim robbins
As climate change puts ecosystems and species at risk, conservationists are turning to a new approach: preserving those landscapes that are most likely to endure as the world warms.

Oil Drilling in Arctic Ocean:
A Push into Uncharted Waters

by ed struzik
As the U.S. and Russia take the first steps to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic Ocean, experts say the harsh climate, icy seas, and lack of infrastructure means a sizeable oil spill would be very difficult to clean up and could cause extensive environmental damage.

Water in the Bank: One Solution
For Drought-Stricken California

by erica gies
A potential answer to California’s severe water shortages is groundwater banking, which involves creating incentives for municipalities, farmers, and other water users to percolate water down into sub-surface aquifers for later use.

How Long Can Oceans Continue
To Absorb Earth’s Excess Heat?

by cheryl katz
The main reason soaring greenhouse gas emissions have not caused air temperatures to rise more rapidly is that oceans have soaked up much of the heat. But new evidence suggests the oceans’ heat-buffering ability may be weakening.

With Fins Off Many Menus,
A Glimmer of Hope for Sharks

by ted williams
For decades, the slaughter of sharks – sought after for their fins and meat – has been staggering. But bans on finning and new attitudes in Asia toward eating shark fin soup are leading to optimism about the future for these iconic ocean predators.

e360 digest
Yale Environment 360 is
a publication of the
Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies


Donate to Yale Environment 360
Yale Environment 360 Newsletter



About e360
Submission Guidelines

E360 en Español

Universia partnership
Yale Environment 360 articles are now available in Spanish and Portuguese on Universia, the online educational network.
Visit the site.


e360 Digest
Video Reports


Business & Innovation
Policy & Politics
Pollution & Health
Science & Technology


Antarctica and the Arctic
Central & South America
Middle East
North America


Photographer Robert Wintner documents the exquisite beauty and biodiversity of Cuba’s unspoiled coral reefs.
View the gallery.


The latest
from Yale
Environment 360
is now available for mobile devices at e360.yale.edu/mobile.

e360 VIDEO

Warriors of Qiugang
The Warriors of Qiugang, a Yale Environment 360 video, chronicles a Chinese village’s fight against a polluting chemical plant. It was nominated for a 2011 Academy Award for Best Documentary Short.
Watch the video.

header image
Top Image: aerial view of Iceland. © Google & TerraMetrics.


A three-part series Tainted Harvest looks at the soil pollution crisis in China, the threat it poses to the food supply, and the complexity of any cleanup.
Read the series.