This morning, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and Subcommittee on Oversight held a joint hearing on “Scientific Integrity and Transparency Reforms at the Environmental Protection Agency,” which included discussion of the new procedures. Lisa Jackson, administrator of the EPA, testified on how the new IRIS process will help fulfill President Obama’s memorandum on scientific integrity by increasing transparency in science-based regulation.

EPA will now manage the entire IRIS review process, rather than the Office of Management and Budget, Jackson said. Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, discussed the importance of this change in control in a Science Progress podcast last month. The OMB previously had the power to change scientific advice, Grifo said, and described the problematic regulatory process under the Bush administration. “What we saw in the past was, rather than be courageous and come out and talk about which parts were policy and which parts were science, we saw changes in the science to cover up an often unpopular policy decision,” she said. Grifo explained in that interview that administration policy could break with the scientific advice, but the reasoning had to be clear, rather than resorting to an obfuscation of the data. “The key here is for all of us to see the scientific basis,” she said.

The new IRIS process requires that all written scientific comments on IRIS drafts provided by federal agencies be made public. Furthermore, most contaminant evaluations will be available on IRIS within two years of the review start date, Jackson said. The condensed process not only presents health-related information to the public more quickly, but also eliminates steps agencies could potentially use to inhibit the process, explained John B. Stephenson, director of natural resources & environment at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Under the old rules, agencies could declare a need for additional research to suspend the IRIS process and prevent or delay a substance from being added to the database. This gave agencies time to present studies that conflicted with the original “best available science,” Stephenson said.

Image: AP

She added: “This pollution problem has a solution – one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.”

The announcement opens a 60-day comment period before the EPA would move to create formal regulations, which would potentially have to cover individual sectors of the economy, according to the Washington Post.

As Chris Mooney argued earlier this week, EPA regulation is one of three critical knobs the administration can turn in sync to get comprehensive climate legislation in place this year that generates jobs, prevents pollution, and makes the country more competative.

Good riddance to the lies, the deception, the White House-edited pseudoscience reports. Good riddance to the stacked science advisory committees, the faux peer-review of proposed regulations, the junkyard claims of “junk science.”

Good riddance to the scientist manqué at the top of the Environmental Protection Agency who big-footed actual evidence for political convenience. Good riddance to the leadership at the Office of Science and Technology Policy that supported President Bush’s skepticism about the need to address climate change aggressively.

Good riddance to the vice-president who thought the telecom revolution was about better bugging of innocent citizens’ phone calls. Good riddance to the president who cared more about human embryos than he did about children living in the lower Ninth Ward.

Now, however, comes the difficult task of looking forward—of finding the place for progressive voices in an administration refreshingly committed to treating science fairly, but burdened by an inheritance of underfunded agencies and dispirited federal scientists. And all this comes in the midst of an economic crisis that precludes the cash infusion that our emaciated science agencies and their surviving public servants need and so richly deserve.

But there are two aspects of the current predicament that give me hope. First, of course, is that when it comes to science, Obama really does get it. Back in October 2008, he sent via the government employees union several letters to federal workers in the science-based agencies, stating in no uncertain terms his commitment to evidence. “In an Obama administration, the principle of scientific integrity will be an absolute, and I will never sanction any attempt to subvert the work of scientists,” he wrote.

By my reading, those missives could be reduced to about seven words—two-sevenths exhortation—“Hang on!”—and five-sevenths supplication—“I’m going to need you!”

The supplication gets me to my second reason for hope, which is that despite all the failings at

• the Food and Drug Administration: the Plan B debacle, the parade of contaminated foods, and the failure to follow up on serious side effects of drugs
• the EPA, with its repeated overruling of science on pesticide approvals, chemical contamination standards, air and water pollution
• the Interior Department, which, according to The New York Times, is “riddled with incompetence and corruption, captive to industries it is supposed to regulate and far more interested in exploiting public resources than conserving them.”
• the Department of Agriculture, which has been repeatedly scolded by federal courts for its failed science policies and which, according to a just-released Inspector General report, “does not have a strategy for monitoring new transgenic plants and animals that may be developed and imported into the United States”
• the National Institutes of Health, which has not paid sufficient attention to conflicts of interest among its grantees and provided too much cover for the morally corrupt Bush stem cell plan
• the National Aeronautics and Space Administration—consider the Columbia disaster and the pending loss of the shuttle fleet with no other means of reaching the space station
• the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which failed in “almost every respect” to protect Hurricane Katrina victims from the well-understood risks of formaldehyde fumes, according to a congressional investigation, and which has alienated scientists around the world for failing to share important public health data

…Despite all these failings and more, the amazing thing is that every time I talk to the men and women who are actually doing the science in these agencies, I find them almost without exception to be hugely talented and dedicated professionals. Most of them are working on shoestrings but virtually all of them are squeezing all the integrity they can into the process, wanting nothing more (and nothing less) than to get the best answers to the smartest questions so the United States can be a leader among nations and help save the world. Who can’t relate to that?

In short, I am heartened that the nation is endowed with a huge corps of public-servant scientists devoted to going where the evidence takes them and who, as of Wednesday, will for the first time in years be respected by the highest officials in the land for what they do. What’s more, one of the silver linings of our recent eight-year nightmare is that scientists have awakened to the political context within which they work, and more of them than ever seem willing to speak their minds when it comes to how their studies are to be integrated into the world of public policy.

Now is the time for progressives inside and outside of science to solidify these gains for the common good—to avoid overreaching in these days of our political ascendance and instead prove that science can bring economic as well as environmental benefit, prove that scientists can be responsive to social, ethical, and cultural concerns, and prove that evidence is a better source of ideas than ideology.

Rick Weiss is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Science Progress.

Ethically Challenged
One Quarter of Stem Cell Lines Eligible for Federal Funding Fail Ethics Guidelines
By Rick Weiss
An expert panel at Stanford University determined in July that nearly one quarter of the colonies of human embryonic stem cells that the Bush administration had approved as ethically derived and eligible for study with federal funds did not meet Stanford’s ethics standards.

Enormously Pathetic Agency
The Evisceration of the EPA
By Chris Mooney
There was a near-complete breakdown at our central environmental regulatory agency under the Bush administration. And that was just what things looked like in April.

The Halfway House Between Science and Secrets
An Interview With Bruce Schneier on Science and Security
By Jonathan Pfeiffer
A National Research Council report recognized that the 9/11 attacks provoked counter-productive security measures that stifle access to fruitful scientific research. Security expert Bruce Schneier talked with Science Progress about the science that makes us smarter and the security that makes us safer.

Minding Mental Minefields
How to Stockpile the Neuropharmacological Arsenal
By Rick Weiss
Another report from the National Research Council argued that the military should harness the power of neuroscience research to amplify the cognitive prowess of U.S. military personnel and make foreign soldiers, um, less smarter.

Plight of the Postdoc
Is Modern American Science Strangling Its Young Talents In the Cradle?
By Sheril Kirshenbaum
Colleges and universities are graduating more science and engineering PhDs, but diminishing opportunities are derailing young scientists from future careers as scientific leaders.

Hearts and Minds
Expelled Suggests Defenders of Evolution are Losing Them
By Chris Mooney
The successful right-wing documentary demonstrated that science needs a loud, accessible, entertaining, mass media response to creationist nonsense.

The Staggering Cyclone Nargis Catastrophe
A Disastrous Convergence of Variables
By Chris Mooney
The alarming death tolls from the storm were a product of poverty, poor infrastructure, and a negligent government. Better forecasting for the North Indian region would be a start for protecting citizens from future cyclones. Democracy in Burma probably wouldn’t hurt, either.

Manufactroversy
The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed
By Leah Ceccarelli
Contemporary rhetorical tactics designed to confuse politicians and the public about scientific issues are as old as antiquity. The methods are just as disingenuous 2,500 years after their invention.

Contraception Is the New Abortion
The Latest Right Wing Trend? Attack Birth Control
By Jessica Arons
An HHS rule was just the most recent attempt in a longstanding campaign by social conservatives to turn discomfort with abortion into opposition to contraception.

Ubiquity Requires Redundancy
The Case for Federal Investment in Broadband
By Mark Lloyd
The attacks of 9/11 and body blow of Hurricane Katrina highlight for all but the most doctrinaire advocates of free markets that there is an exceedingly strong case for direct government investment in the deployment of advanced telecommunications services to build a safe, strong, and resilient America.

Science Under Obama
Next Administration Would Chart a Dramatic New Course
By Chris Mooney
The day after the historic election, Mooney wrote that there’s much for scientists to like about Barack Obama’s plans for science policy. But, Mooney asked, will the president-elect make it a priority, and what about the money?

Wikipedia and the New Curriculum
Digital Literacy Is Knowing How We Store What We Know
By David Parry
Students and teachers alike must understand how systems of knowledge creation and archivization are changing. Encyclopedias are no longer static collections of facts and figures; they are living entities. Just check the entry on Global Warming. This article generated a spirited discussion on Science Progress and around the blogosphere.

Taken together, the seven science advisers he has so far appointed are surely the most distinguished group of scientists at the highest levels of government in decades. They would make the founders of our republic—the most technology-oriented pantheon of revolutionaries in history—proud.

Steven Chu is the first Nobel laureate in science nominated for a cabinet position, Secretary of Energy. Chu has the ability to recognize good science and, just as important, sees our energy and environmental problems within a larger framework of the innovation economy. To coordinate energy and climate policy in the White House Obama has selected former Environmental Protection Agency head Carol Browner. Former New Jersey environmental commissioner Lisa Jackson will run EPA. And L.A. deputy mayor Nancy Sutley will direct the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

All these impressive credentials are a beginning, not an end. But at the very least they say to the American people that respect for evidence will once again have a central role in government science policy.

As the Passover ritual says, if this is all the president-elect had done for science and our country that would have been sufficient. But he is also expected to name the highly respected Harvard University physicist and climate expert John Holdren as his White House science adviser. Holdren, a former board chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is a vigorous supporter of efforts to put innovation back on our national agenda, as it is crucial to all aspects of our national security and prosperity.

Obama will apparently also name Oregon State University marine biologist Jane Lubchenco as head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Lubchenco, also much admired in the scientific community, is a member of both the National Academy of Science and the British Royal Academy.

Again, all these impressive credentials are a beginning, not an end. But at the very least they say to the American people that respect for evidence will once again have a central role in government science policy. The role of regulatory agencies—to create a level playing field of safety and opportunity—will be restored to its proper place in government, in the context of a public policy that builds the cleaner, green economy that must be the foundation of the new American prosperity.

Especially striking is the turn away from the tiresome, divisive and dispiriting culture wars that so politicized science—a sorry trademark of the past eight years. Americans can now look forward with pleasure to further smart appointments, including new leadership for the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

At Science Progress we are committed to the proposition that sound public policy requires taking evidence seriously. If democracy is to thrive, we must find new and better ways to integrate the spirit of open inquiry into our policy process. That’s why we cover the latest research and discussions shaping science policy and develop pragmatic proposals that promote science and innovation that ensures greater freedom, justice, and quality of life for all people. We celebrate the new appreciation for the contributions of science to policy and to shaping a better world.

Yet the outgoing Bush administration has left us with a parting shot: a midnight regulation that could clear the way for new coal-fired plants not restrained by greenhouse-gas rules. Just one week ago today I experienced the “sunniest” day of a stay in Beijing. That was a bright, noxious haze in which I could roughly make out the rim of the sun. The seven for science named so far can’t alone protect us from the future we can read in the Beijing sky, but they can help show us the way.

Jonathan D. Moreno, Ph.D., is the David and Lyn Silfen University Professor of Ethics and Professor of Medical Ethics and of the History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania, and the Editor-in-Chief of Science Progress.

Chu’s appointment—along with news that Carol Browner will get the nod to head the new National Energy Council and Lisa Jaskson will be nominated for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency—sends a clear signal about Obama’s commitment to progressive energy and climate policy. But it’s also a clear return to a policymaking approach based on attention to scientific evidence, something readers hardly need to be reminded was far from what the Bush administration has been up to for the past eight years. (The Philadelphia Inquirer has a bruising indictment of Stephen Johnson’s tenure at the EPA. Johnson originally drew accolades as the first scientist to head the agency.) The potential of having a Nobel-winning scientist high in the executive branch is nothing short of energizing for the research community. Here’s some of the reaction in published reports:

“Steve Chu is a world-class intellectual…When I heard that name (for energy secretary), I smiled.”
—Steve Schneider, Stanford University environmental scientist

“When he was first here, he started giving talks about energy and production of energy… He didn’t just present a problem. He told us what we could do. It was an energizing thing to see. He’s not a manager, he’s a leader.”
—Bob Jacobsen, senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley lab and UC Berkeley physics professor

“He has been relentless about addressing the technical challenges of renewable energy in a deep way.”
—Robert J. Birgeneau, chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley

“[President-elect Obama] certainly needs somebody who can focus on the science and energy policies and I can’t think of a better guy than Steve.”
—Mike Lubell, physics professor at the City College of New York

“It’s a great sign to see a scientist named as head of this very important department, because it sends a signal that the issues of climate change and energy go well beyond ideology.”
—Keya Chatterjee, World Wildlife Fund

“After the anti-science Bush administration, this is like going to a Mensa meeting after eight years of being trapped in the Flat Earth Society.”
—Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress

Here’s to Dr. Chu and the rest of the next administration’s energy team bringing science back.

Weiss’s Notebook

CAP Senior Fellow Rick Weiss covered science and medicine for The Washington Post for 15 years, and now he brings his investigative eye to science policy. From cloning and stem cells to agricultural biotechnology and nanotechnology, Weiss examines the issues at the intersection of cutting edge research and public policy.

The presidential transition, begun quietly before the party conventions, now barrels ahead at full speed. And as soon as the transition team has completed its immediate work on the two most pressing issues of the day—national security and the economy—there is good reason to believe that the nation’s science agencies and offices will get fast and close attention.

It is a truism by now that the solutions to many of the major problems facing the United States—climate change, energy, the environment, health care, and food security, among others—have major scientific or technological components. It is also widely recognized that the Bush administration’s almost allergic rejection of scientific evidence and government oversight has badly stalled the development of new approaches to these problems, as well as others in the life sciences and public health. Transition officials clearly plan to act quickly to select new heads for the agencies responsible for these interlinked issues, with an eye toward enabling coordinated efforts.

Already, the Washington rumor mill is buzzing with names of possible science appointees. I have no inside information, but to satisfy the innate human urge to give and receive gossip, I’m happy to highlight some of what I’ve heard from others. For secretary of Health and Human Services, there is talk of former Majority Leader (and CAP senior fellow) Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who released a book in February on the nation’s healthcare crisis; Nobel laureate and former National Institutes of Health Director Harold Varmus, currently president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman and a family physician; and Kathleen Sebelius (D), the governor of Kansas, who made a name for herself when she successfully fought a major battle against BlueCross-BlueShield’s plan to become a for-profit company.

For FDA Commissioner, some have floated the names of Mike Taylor, a former deputy FDA commissioner with particular expertise in food safety; Mary Pendergast, who had a top post in the FDA under President Clinton and has also consulted for the pharmaceutical industry; and even Steven Nissen, the Cleveland Clinic maverick M.D. who has become a chronic thorn in the side of big pharma by repeatedly challenging the data that drug companies have used to back up their claims of safety and efficacy.

It’s been easy for scientists to gripe about their mistreatment during the past eight years. But now is not the time to demand payback.

The parlor game could go on, and it will. But what is more interesting, really, is just how many high-level science openings there are to fill. There are the cabinet-level positions overseeing such science-heavy departments as Agriculture, Energy, and Commerce. There is the surgeon general, the directors of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology; the administrators of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and the head of the United States Geological Survey, the all-important research arm of the Interior department.

Within the executive office of the president alone there is the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and science advisor to the president (a position that many in science hope will be elevated to a cabinet level “assistant to the president” post); four associate directors of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; a gaggle of presidentially appointed members of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology; the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality; the director and three associate directors of the Office of Management and Budget; and the administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which has in recent years become an increasingly important venue for scientific review and regulation.

Now feel free to skip this paragraph—and to seek help if in fact you make it to the end—but I would be remiss not to mention as well that within the Agriculture Department alone the president needs to appoint three science-based under secretaries—for research, education, and economics; food safety; and food, nutrition, and consumer services. In Commerce he must choose an under secretary for oceans and atmosphere. In Defense he must find a director of defense research and engineering; an under secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics; a director for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; an assistant secretary for health affairs; an assistant secretary for networks and information integration; a chief information officer; and an assistant to the secretary for nuclear and chemical and biological defense programs. In Education he must pick a director of that department’s Institute of Education Sciences. In Energy there are slots that must be filled for an under secretary of science; an under secretary for energy and environment; an assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy; an assistant secretary for environmental management; an assistant secretary for fossil energy; an assistant secretary of nuclear energy; and an under secretary for nuclear security.

And remember, we’re just talking about the most science-y presidential appointments here. We’ll ignore the nearly 500 others for now (but see below for a more exhaustive list).

Of these myriad positions, the most important will be the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. This is a position that has traditionally been held by a physicist, a holdover from the days when the most important thing to think about in science was the risk of a nuclear attack. Today, as the nation faces a far broader array of scientific threats, including climate change and biological warfare, it will be interesting to see if the new president breaks with tradition and appoints an earth scientist or biologist to that central scientific coordinating position.

The fruits of all these transitional decisions will take time to ripen, but here are a few questions worth asking today:

Will HHS lead a quick and effective charge to focus more on prevention, reduce the cost of healthcare and insurance, and expand coverage to the un- and underinsured?

Will FDA work together with Agriculture to revamp the nation’s food safety system? Will it demand more of pharmaceutical companies, and will it regulate tobacco?

Will EPA get back to the job of using science to calculate honestly the effects of pesticides and other chemicals on the environment and human health? Will it lead the way to dealing with climate change and stand up for endangered species?

Will DOE jump-start the transition to a low-carbon economy by aggressively funding work on alternative energy sources and promulgating strict energy efficiency standards for homes and office buildings? Will it tackle the problem of nuclear waste?

And will Interior manage, in an integrated way, the nation’s precious fresh water resources and protect public lands for we the taxpayers who together own them?

To answer these questions in the affirmative will require a government commitment to data instead of ideology, which alone would constitute a real break from the Bush legacy. But it will also require a huge corps of scientists willing to speak up, and to provide and interpret those much-needed data for the good of the country.

The National Academies put it well in their 2008 report, “Science and Technology For America’s Progress: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments in the New Administration”:

The nature of our current national challenges, whether domestic or abroad, demands the best of science, engineering and technology to solve. “More of the same” will not work in the 21st century. Innovative thinking will be needed to a degree unprecedented in American history. Fortunately, large numbers of scientists, engineers, and health professionals have experienced positive change throughout their careers and have been enormously successful as a result. They have much to give back. Government service is an excellent means by which to repay that debt.

It’s been easy for scientists to gripe about their mistreatment during the past eight years. But now is not the time to demand payback. Now is the time for science to put its best foot forward and show the country what it’s been missing.

Rick Weiss is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Science Progress.

Key Science and Technology Positions

Adapted from the NAS report, “Science and Technology for America’s Progress: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments in the New Administration”

PAS = presidential appointment with Senate confirmation

PA = presidential appointment (without Senate confirmation)

NA = noncareer appointment

FT = fixed term appointment, with length of appointment indicated

Examples of Scientific and Technical Federal Advisory Commitees, by Origin and Purpose

The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms.

Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining.

Once such rules take effect, they typically can be undone only through a laborious new regulatory proceeding, including lengthy periods of public comment, drafting and mandated reanalysis.

For a refresher on the seven-and-a-half years of conservative approaches to just one regulatory sphere, the environment (to say nothing of pharmaceuticals and other consumer products), check out this timeline of the administration’s record. Boo.

flickr.com/morganmorgan

In a surprising move last week, the Environmental Protection Agency sided with science, environmentalists, and America’s children. It has been 30 years since the United States saw a reduction in lead emissions standards, but on October 15, EPA reduced the limits from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter to 0.15. The move will force smelters, metal mines, and waste incinerators to reduce their emissions of the toxic metal. Since 1990, over 6,000 studies have confirmed the dangerous effects of lead, especially on children, as it lowers their IQ and damages learning and memory abilities. In adults, lead can cause brain, kidney, and cardiovascular damage.

The move garnered praise from bloggers at The Pump Handle and Switchboard, usual critics of the Bush administration’s environmental policy. But even with the new limits, the number of emissions monitoring stations has dropped from 800 in 1980 to around 130 stations currently, according to both blogs. The EPA plans to add or relocate 236 monitoring sites to meet requirements, still less than half of the previous number. Additionally, polluters will not need to comply with the new .15 μg/cubic meter standards until 2017. Gina Solomon at Switchboard writes: “That’s too late! We’ve already waited 30 years for this new lead standard, and it’s crazy to wait almost 10 more years for it to come into effect.”

But the history of lead in human civilization goes back even further. There have been several phases in the regulation of lead-based paint and leaded gasoline, taking nearly a century for public policy to catch up with scientific warnings. David Michaels, in his book, Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, describes the history of the battle between the paint and gas industry’s PR machines and public health advocates and environmentalists. Here’s a timeline of what’s happened in the United States over the past 100 years:

1900s: Lead was regarded as a highly toxic chemical, with lead-based paint regarded as the most identifiable hazard. If a child ate paint chips, people recognized it could cause seizure, coma, and death. If it didn’t traumatically harm the child, he or she may have learning and behavioral disabilities.

1922: Lead was first introduce into gasoline, immediately drawing headlines concerning public health. The form of lead in gasoline was known as tetraethyl lead and it raised the octane level of gasoline, resulting in “premium” gas for high-performance engines.

1924: Five workers at a New Jersey plant died, with four of them going “insane” before their death. The New York Times (subscription) covered the story, and New York City, Philadelphia, and other jurisdictions banned the sale of leaded gasoline.

1930s: The industries rejected scientific evidence, claiming there was no proof of causation and tried to blame the children and families as being irresponsible for allowing children to eat the paint chips, claiming that they were “sub-normal to start with.”

1965: A geochemist named Clair Patterson in Greenland brought the airborne lead issue into American consciousness. Until then, industry experts claimed only workers were at risk for lead poisoning, and that because lead has always been naturally in the air, it must be safe. Using ice core samples, Patterson found that higher levels of lead existed in recent samples than older ice. He further concluded that the amount of lead Americans had in their blood was 100 times greater than natural levels.

1970: Nixon signed the Clean Air Act of 1970 into law on December 31st, and the Environmental Protection Agency, formed on December 2, had a task worth attacking. “Year of the Environment came to an end on an extremely upbeat note with the signing of a major piece of environmental legislation. The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 was the perfect bookend to balance the National Environmental Policy Act the President had signed with such a flourish on New Year’s Day,” states the EPA. Along with lead, the EPA was required to lower emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides by 90 percent in only a few years.

1971: President Richard Nixon signed the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, which restricted the lead content in paint used in housing built with federal dollars and provided funds for states to reduce the amount of lead in paint. Subsequent legislation created the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which effectively banned leaded paint in 1976.

1984: The U.S. Senate considered banning the use of lead in gasoline, with Vernon Houk, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Center for Environmental Heath, reporting that “if no lead had been allowed in gasoline since 1977, there would have been approximately 80 percent fewer children identified with lead toxicity.”

1985: The EPA discussed a total ban on leaded gasoline by 1988.

1990: In amendments to the Clean Air Act, lead was banned from gasoline. The measures would take effect in 1995, giving gasoline companies five more years to completely phase out lead.

2002: According to a study, levels of lead found in human blood were reduced more than 80 percent from 1976 to 1999 in American children one to five years old, and these children had IQs that were, on average, 2.2-4.7 points higher than comparable groups in the 1970s. In terms of economic impact, the authors estimate that each IQ point raises worker productivity 1.76-2.38 percent. The estimated economic benefit for each year’s newborns ranges from $110 billion to $319 billion.

2008: EPA tightens air emission rules for lead, requiring industries to reduce levels to .15 μg/cubic meter. The new standard is 10 times greater than previous requirements set 30 years ago.

2013: States are required to submit state implementation plans outlining how they will reduce pollution to meet the standards no later than June.

2017: States are required to meet the new standards no later than January.

Science, Cultured

Science Progress contributing editor Chris Mooney surveys the interactions between science, politics, and culture from Los Angeles, California. He is author of two previous books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs at The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum. (Photo: flickr.com/sarahfelicity)

When I started writing for Science Progress a year ago, I wasn’t sure what kind of publication would materialize. True, I had some idea of the kinds of arguments I myself would contribute—being known, among other matters, for discussing political interference with science and the problem of science communication—but it wasn’t clear where the broader experiment would go.

At its one year anniversary, however, I can honestly say that in my opinion, this site—regularly featuring the work of Rick Weiss, Jonathan Moreno, and numerous other insightful contributors—ranks among the very best sources of timely, rigorous, and intellectually serious science policy thinking on the web.

To see that, let’s peruse some of the important threads that have been pursued here over the last year, to give a sense both of the extensive scope and of the quality of analysis. I want to talk about five themes in particular that have recurred at Science Progress: how to restore science advice to the next president and next administration, including revitalizing the role of science in the federal government; the parallel importance of science in Congress; the challenges facing young scientists in America today, especially in the context of concerns about preserving our scientific competitiveness; the knotty but crucial problem of science communication; and the future of the life sciences.

In the wake of an administration that failed to make science a priority, Science Progress writers have worked to outline a better, healthier course for next president to take. Ranging from my own parsing of the National Academies’ advice for the next administration—most notably, that it must quickly appoint a presidential science adviser who can restore the prominence of this role—to bioethicist Art Caplan’s attempt to put six pressing science policy concerns on the administration’s radar (hint: we have to do far more than simply resolve the stem cell issue), you might say Science Progress has provided a cheat sheet concerning what to do, and what to pay attention to, should you happen to be running a government that actually wants to heed the “reality-based community.” Of foremost importance to that government will be having scientists on hand and allowing them easy access to the president and other top policymakers, not only to advise on the issues of the moment but also to provide foresight—so that the issues of the future, like synthetic biology or geoengineering, won’t take anyone by surprise.

And as with the administration, so with Congress—the House and Senate haven’t exactly been science-friendly places of late, but that can and must change. First, there’s the needed but long-delayed solution of bringing back the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, discussed in this column by Darlene Cavalier. But there’s also the imperative to get more science-friendly members of Congress elected to begin with, so as to improve the scientific literacy of the body from within. We must pursue multiple strategies simultaneously to increase the resonance of science for the average legislator, so that he or she can see that science underlies many or even most important issues handled in Congress and, indeed, directly affects voters back home.

The advancement of scientific research isn’t the same as progress in scientific outreach and communication, and the science community has traditionally privileged the former and given short shrift to the latter.

Science Progress has also been an important outlet for analysis on what is arguably the most visible issue in science policy today: How to ensure ongoing U.S. competitiveness in the face of challenges from emerging science superpowers like India and China. But while authors writing here certainly wouldn’t argue that such competitiveness concerns should be ignored, they have brought out an important sub-theme that has all too frequently been neglected: Namely, that if we want to compete in the broadest sense of the term, simply producing more scientists isn’t enough. For after all, note Science Progress contributors Sheril Kirshenbaum and Beryl Lieff Benderly, we already have staggering numbers of talented young postdocs stuck in holding patterns, without nearly enough academic jobs awaiting them. There is a constriction of opportunity for the youngest scientists in America, and if we want to remain competitive, that’s just as serious an issue as the total number of scientists and engineers we’re producing.

Another important, related wrinkle has been the argument that international scientific competitiveness, alone, may not be enough. For while the United States must continue to excel in research (and let us not forget that our nation still leads the world in science), it’s entirely possible for laboratory science to thrive even as the influence and relevance of science, in policy and to the average citizen, decline. In other words, the advancement of scientific research isn’t the same as progress in scientific outreach and communication, and the science community has traditionally privileged the former and given short shrift to the latter. And so a recurring theme here has been that scientists must study the modern media, and engage in outreach to other important sectors of society. Moreover, such outreach must go beyond simply lecturing about the facts, and come to include broad public engagement on equal footing with non-scientists—as Rick Borchelt and Kathy Hudson argue—which is the only way to break down the walls between the experts and everybody else, rather than reinforcing them.

Such rapprochement will be particularly critical going forward as we watch science generate a deeper and deeper understanding of ourselves. Today genetic research is bringing us ever closer to a world in which being able to sample each individual’s DNA will trigger personalized medical solutions tailored to a given arrangement of base-pairs; even as burgeoning neuroscience work is explaining more and more about how we actually come to be the creatures we are, from the brain up. Ongoing, rapid progress in such fields will raise a host of new ethical concerns and has great potential to alarm the public by calling into question traditional concepts of identity, free will, morality, and obligations between generations. Once again, Science Progress has become a leader in analyzing the bioethical challenges implicit in these unstoppable new discoveries.

We live in a paradoxical time. One the one hand, it’s one in which science is changing our world more than ever before, and matters to policy and individual lives more than ever. Yet at the same time, it has become increasingly difficult to get science on the radar of politicians, the media, and the public, and to make it resonate. In this context, Science Progress plays a unique role as a connector between scientific research and the policy and public process—a task that’s now more vital than ever, and that will only grow more so in 2008 and beyond.

Chris Mooney is a contributing editor to Science Progress and the author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs on The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.

(Use the scroll bar at the bottom of the timeline to scan backwards in time all the way to the opening days of the Bush administration’s environmental failures in 2001. Click on the photos accompanying the events for more information.)

UPDATE: This seemed apropos:

(From the Cartoonist Group.)

flick.com/jpmatth

No one is expecting an executive order mandating federal regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act between now and January, but it is promising to have the Senate Committee on Environmental and Policy Works addressing the issue this morning. Speakers at the hearing include Jason Burnett, former associate deputy administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, who resigned this summer after disputes over the EPA’s inaction following the Supreme Court’s decision that the agency must regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Also speaking will be Bill Kovacs, vice president of Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs under the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who said in a recent report that regulating CO2 under the Act would overburden the EPA.

Chris Mooney wrote previously here at Science Progress that the EPA has been under extreme pressure to address global warming, but under the influence of the Bush administration, it has side-stepped (and even back-tracked) on the issue. The EPA has refused to regulate greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act, a stance which has led to scandals and lawsuits.

With frustration growing among some states, attorneys general are directly suing companies that emit greenhouse gases, such as Exxon Mobil and electric power plants. Mooney, who covered this simmering issue in a column entitled “The Coming Global Warming ‘Scopes’ Trial,” said the attorneys are blaming climate change on these companies, using scientific evidence to show the relationship between emissions and a shifting environment. And with last year’s Massachusetts vs. EPA case giving climate change advocates legal standing, courts must now analyze these claims. The lawsuits against carbon emitters may portend an emerging trend in science-based litigation similar to the suits brought against big tobacco.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced today that Dr. Deborah Swackhamer will be the new chair of the EPA Science Advisory Board. The board, composed of outside scientists and engineers, reviews the scientific information upon which the EPA bases policy decisions. The two-year appointment comes at the tail end of a long period of sustained damage to the EPA’s scientific integrity at the hand of conservatives and the Bush administration.

There’s Administrator Stephen Johnson’s refusal to listen to his own advisors on climate change, the sustained political interference with scientific work, and juridical rebukes for inadequate regulation. (The Union of Concerned Scientists keeps a comprehensive catalog of abuses at EPA and elsewhere.)

The announcement comes the day before the House Energy and Commerce Committee holds a hearing aptly entitled “Science Under Siege: Scientific Integrity at the Environmental Protection Agency.” Coincidence?

Unfortunately, the only thing that may save the EPA is a new administration.

(Cartoon from the Cartoonist Group.)

Tuesday

Climate Change Legislation and Revenue Recycling
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
B369 Rayburn House Office Building
8 a.m.

Electric Vehicle Development/Outlook
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
366 Dirksen Senate Office Building
10 a.m.

Domestic HIV Prevention
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
2154 Rayburn House Office Building
10 a.m.

EPA Children’s Health Protection
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
406 Dirksen Senate Office Building
10 a.m.

Why Broadband Matters
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
253 Russell Senate Office Building
10:30 a.m.

Cybersecurity Recommendations for the Next Administration
House Homeland Security Committee; Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology Subcommittee
311 Cannon House Office Building
2 p.m.

CISTP Seminar Series on Science, Technology, and Innovation
The George Washington University, Center for International Science and Technology Policy
The Commons, 1957 E Street, NW, Suite 403, Washington, DC 20052
5 p.m.

Wednesday

Exporting Electronic Waste
House Foreign Affairs Committee
2172 Rayburn House Office Building
2 p.m.

Thursday

Antibiotics: Is a strong offense the best defense?
Koshland Science Museum
500 5th St NW, Washington, DC
6:30 p.m.

Preventing Climate Change
House Ways and Means Committee
1100 Longworth House Office Building
10:30 a.m.

EPA Scientific Integrity
House Energy and Commerce Committee
2322 Rayburn House Office Building
10 a.m.

Social Sciences’ Public Health Role
House Science and Technology Committee
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
10 a.m.

Emerging U.S. Water Contaminants
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
2167 Rayburn House Office Building
2 p.m.

Panel Discussion on Role of Science in Presidential Policy
Featuring Science Progress Editor-in-Chief Jonathan Moreno and Contributing Editor Chris Mooney
University of Mississippi
Live Web cast
4 p.m.

Bioethics meets voting technology: Summer Johnson grabs a story on blog.bioethics.net on how mobile voting machines could empower those who cannot commute to a polling station.

Nat Torkington has thoughts on better tools for teaching evolution in high school science classes at O’Reilly Radar.

Sheril Kirshenbaum at Next Generation Energy dreams of New York…with wind turbines.

Center for American Progress Fellow Bob Sussman has a three part series on the Clean Air Interstate Rule and how to rebuild clean air policy.

Over at social-networking megasite Mashable, Paul Glazowski discovers scivee.tv, a new site that integrates scientific posters and papers with video commentary from researchers.

Liz Borkowski picks up news that California is taking product safety rules into its own hands with a Green Chemistry Initiative, over at The Pump Handle.

flickr.com/jpmatth

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided on Tuesday in Sierra Club v. EPA to throw out a rule that prevented states from implementing their own pollution-limiting permits. This marks marks yet another instance of a U.S. court overturning a Bush administration Environmental Protection Agency air quality rule on the grounds that it did not actually protect air quality.

This time the court ruled against the EPA because their actions directly violated the stipulations of the Clean Air Act. As John Walke at NRDC’s Switchboard points out, it’s interesting that the Bush administration would have dared to take away the power of the states to regulate their own pollution levels, given the precision of the language in the Clean Air Act:

No grants shall be made under this section until the Administrator has consulted with the appropriate official as designated by the Governor or Governors of the State or States affected… Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Governor of each State shall develop and submit to the Administrator a permit program under State or local law or under an interstate compact meeting the requirements of this title.

The rule that was just overturned prevented states from doing exactly this, which crippled the states’ ability to regulate themselves, and increased the power of the industries that profit from a lack of regulations. Walke quotes some juridical advice from the ruling: “(1) Read the statute; (2) read the statute; (3) read the statute.” Among the industry groups that supported the EPA’s case against state-level regulatory action was the American Petroleum Institute.

The latest is that a group of Democratic senators are calling for EPA administrator Stephen Johnson’s resignation. The day before that, it was the agency’s clamping down on its enforcement staff’s freedom to talk to the media, Congress, and the agency’s own inspector general. But no single one of these episodes can really be understood except as part of a much broader mosaic. EPA is a scandal-ridden agency that has all but ceased to function, dragged down by rampant politicization and repeated assaults to its integrity—a large volume of which involve the issue of global warming.

In sum, it’s a long, sad story that’s finally coming to a close.

Now, as we wait for the Bush years to end, it’s interesting to contemplate just how many more installments to the saga there can actually be. How long will everyone keep going through the same fruitless motions—a well-practiced dance between administration politicals, EPA staff, occasional whistleblowers, congressional monitors, and journalistic muckrackers—before realizing that we should all just wait for a new president to (hopefully) come in and clean up the mess?

I, for one, am feeling pretty fatigued. At this point, the ongoing saga over EPA’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act has gone on for eight years. It traces all the way back to the campaign trail in 2000, when President Bush initially pledged that on his watch, EPA would do just that. But shortly taking office, the president reversed himself—and hung EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who had taken Bush at his word, out to dry.

The new administration then had to support and defend its new policy of non-action—and so began a consistent pattern of dissembling on the science and (increasingly) the law of global warming. This deliberate course of action has spun off continual and variegated mini-scandals. The most recent have been over EPA’s refusal of a request from California to obtain a waiver, under the Clean Air Act, allowing the state to blaze an ambitious trail on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of federal action; and over the agency’s continuing failure to act upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 demand that it determine whether greenhouse gases from vehicles “endanger” public health and welfare—and, if so, regulate them.

These last two scandals have increasingly exposed the current EPA administrator, Stephen Johnson, as little more than a stand in for the White House. EPA’s whistleblower-of-the-moment, former Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett, has testified before Congress that Johnson was for granting California’s waiver request before he was against it. According to Burnett, Johnson had originally made up his mind in California’s favor—at least until hearing from the White House. Indeed, Johnson’s final position on the waiver contradicted the views of his expert staff, including the EPA’s General Counsel, who stated: “After review of the docket and precedent, we don’t believe there are any good arguments against granting the waiver. All of the arguments…are likely to lose in court if we are sued.”

Something eerily similar has occurred with respect to EPA’s long-overdue response to the U.S. Supreme Court. After Bush reversed course on whether his administration would regulate vehicular greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, states and environmental groups sued EPA for its inaction. And as we all now know, the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court—which, in Massachusetts vs. EPA, did not look smilingly upon EPA’s attempt to use scientific uncertainty and other evasions as a rationale for not doing anything.

This set the stage for EPA to, you know, do something—and it nearly did. Johnson and his staff prepared two memos, one for the White House and one for the National Highway and Safety Administration, explaining why greenhouse gas emissions do endanger the public welfare (not a hard stance to defend), and then proposing vehicle standards to deal with that problem. A choice quote from these documents, which have now been partially exposed: “In sum, the Administrator is proposing to find that elevated levels of GHG concentrations may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public welfare.”

But then came (yes) more shenanigans. The White House refused to open the email containing EPA’s communiqué, and then the person who sent the email (Jason Burnett, again), drew back the curtain and exposed the politicos behind it. And now, it appears that oil industry interests had a hand in everything (of course).

Meanwhile, despite having originally supported the document emailed to the White House (but never opened), administrator Johnson shifted stances again. He has now become complicit in a White House attempt to essentially flip off the Supreme Court and run out the clock on global warming policy (by extending the period of public comment on what the agency ought to do).

In sum, it’s a long, sad story that’s finally coming to a close. And surveying it all, I’m struck by two observations.

First: Congressional Democrats—and more specifically, the committees headed by Ed Markey, Henry Waxman, and Barbara Boxer—are going to continue probing this mess as we get deeper and deeper into campaign season. In the process, they may well expose more juicy details. Maybe they’ll even drive out Stephen Johnson.

But we already know enough to know what to think, don’t we? The administration has never wanted to do anything about global warming, and has never been candid in rationalizing its inaction. And this, in turn, has damaged the integrity of many agencies of government, and especially EPA.

That’s the bottom line, and while it’s a bottom line that we can all continue to lament, it’s also one that only a new president and administration can alter.

And then there’s the second observation. It is simply this: I still can’t get over the fact that Stephen Johnson is the first EPA administrator in history who’s actually a scientist.

Chris Mooney is a contributing editor to Science Progress and the author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs on The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.

The good news: because of this gap in federal action, some states such as California, New Hampshire, and Florida have stepped up to the challenge and put their own policies in action to try to reduce GHG emissions. The bad news: the actions of states alone will not be enough. A report put out by the Pew Center asserts that federal policy is necessary to encourage the innovation that will lead to cleaner energy technology, to create a national mandate, and to involve the United States in international dialogue on climate policy.

It is obvious that the next administration will have a lot of work to catch the United States up on emissions reductions. Hopefully it will take the urgency of the situation seriously and make aggressive emissions policies a first priority come January.

Interview with David Michaels on Doubt Is Their Product

Tobacco companies perfected the manufacture of scientific uncertainty, setting the example for numerous U.S. industries to follow. Realizing that studies demonstrating the fact that cigarettes cause cancer posed an immanent threat to their business model, tobacco executives hired public relations experts to attack the science behind the research. Their basic tactic, according to David Michaels, was to argue that the studies “weren’t correct enough.” Despite the wide acceptance of the link between smoking and cancer in the scientific community and the public at large, the strategy worked, and the controversy over the carcinogens in cigarette smoke bought the industry decades of time to continue profiting off a deadly product.

Michaels, an epidemiologist and the director of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at the George Washington School of Public Health, is an expert on how U.S. industries have hired mercenary scientists to use the same tactics to create scientific controversy where it did not previously exist. He spoke yesterday at the Center for American Progress about his new book, Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, which chronicles the “tricks of the trade” employed by scientists-for-hire to systematically delay government action to curb the health risks of asbestos, beryllium, pharmaceuticals, diacetyl (which causes “popcorn lung”), and man-made climate change.

Digging through the documents made public in the multistate settlements against the tobacco industry, Michaels noticed that Hill & Knowlton, the PR firm leading the charge against science on behalf of the cigarette makers, was not a single-issue uncertainty shop. Hill & Knowlton, Michaels discovered, reached out over the years to many industries that exposed workers or the public to dangerous chemicals. Among their clients was DuPont, and the firm boasted about their success fending off regulation long enough for the chemical giant to develop an alternative to the chlorofluorocarbons that were tearing a hole in the ozone layer.

“Most scientists who work for industry are honest,” Michaels points out. Companies interested in delaying regulation will therefore hire consultants Michaels calls “sleazy.” After the success of groups like Hill & Knowlton, these scientists got into the lucrative “product defense” industry (now referred to by the friendlier “product support” moniker). These firms, Michaels explains, use methods “similar to the accounting done by Arthur Anderson for Enron.” They conduct “literature reviews” that include studies of good and poor quality, diluting the results of research identifying hazards to public health. They also take advantage of the uneven playing field by accessing and reanalyzing raw data from government studies. Aside from the Food and Drug Administration, which has access to raw data from drug makers’ clinical trials, most regulatory industries do not have access to the raw data from industry-funded studies. When corporations fight regulation with the results of industry-funded research, as well as with jerry-rigged reanalysises of government data that make health risks evaporate in statistical smoke, the public loses and industry profits.

But Michaels proposes a slate of reforms that can curb the manufacture of uncertainty and protect citizens and workers. He is a strong advocate for strict rules barring scientists with financial conflicts of interest from participating in government advisory panels, as they cannot be expected to provide unbiased interpretations of research. “We need transparency and full disclosure,” he says, explaining that “the interpretation has to be done by scientists who don’t have a financial interest.” With multibillion dollar issues like drug regulation at stake, and with public health a central question in industry regulation, Michaels argues that the government can afford to hire scientists without conflicts.

He also proposes a “Sarbanes-Oxley” for science—a legal framework similar to the one enacted after the accounting scandals that led to the fall of Enron. It would hold corporate executives responsible for the nefarious accounting that goes into product defense research for products that harm the public.

In addition, Michaels proposes equal treatment of public and private science: a level playing field that allows for bi-directional access to raw data. “Industry has the right to do its own studies,” he says, “That’s important.” But if the research will have an effect on public policy, data and methods have to be public information.

Ultimately, the key step to defending public health from underhanded industry tactics may be to follow the money. Prestigious medical journals, Michaels points out, require statements indicating who paid for a study, but smaller publications (sometimes set up by product defense firms themselves) and regulatory agencies don’t always have such rules. Scientists, journalists, and policy makers must always ask where the money comes from when there are controversies over research on public health. “Sunlight,” in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis, “is said to be the best of disinfectants.”

View full event video (CAP site)

Interview with David Michaels on Doubt Is Their Product

Debating the science, David Michaels points out in his new book, Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, is a lot easier for these companies than debating policy. He traces the same “tricks of the trade” that industry-funded scientists used to delay action to curb the health risks posed by tobacco, asbestos, beryllium, dangerous pharmaceuticals, diacetyl (which causes “popcorn lung”), and man-made climate change. Scientists, policymakers, journalists, and citizens deserve independent science that protects public health, says Michaels, an epidemiologist and the director of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at the George Washington School of Public Health. This interview transcript has been edited.

Andrew Plemmons Pratt, Science Progress: When did you know that you needed to write this book, and why?

David Michaels: During the Clinton administration, I served as assistant secretary of energy for Environment, Safety, and Health. I was responsible for the health of workers, the communities, and the environment around the nation’s nuclear weapons factories, some of the most polluted and dangerous places in the United States. One of the hazards I had to address was beryllium, an extremely toxic lightweight metal that’s used in the manufacture of our nuclear weapons. We had workers who were getting chronic beryllium disease, which a terrible, often deadly disease, after extremely low exposures. We had an accountant who got sick after working for a very brief time in a building in which beryllium had been used several years earlier.

In the Clinton administration, under the leadership of then-Secretary of Energy, now-New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, we issued a beryllium protection rule that’s ten times stronger than the one that’s used by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for private sector workers. As we were developing this rule, the beryllium industry submitted studies that I saw as attempts to obscure the issue. Instead of acknowledging that the old standard wasn’t adequately protective, they focused on what we didn’t know. They clearly wanted to delay our more protective regulation. Of course, we didn’t let their reports stop us and we issued a strong regulation.

But I continued to be interested in beryllium after leaving the Clinton administration. So if there was an “ah ha” moment, it was probably when, searching through the tobacco archives—millions of pages of previously-secret documents put up on the web as a result of the tobacco lawsuits—I discovered that the same scientists who had manufactured uncertainly for the beryllium industry were doing the same thing for the cigarette manufactures.

SP: That’s one of the key themes that you write about, the “manufacture of uncertainty.” Can you talk a little bit about the different kinds of methods that industries use to create this uncertainty where it did not exist before?

Michaels: In the book I call them “tricks of the trade,” which are tricks one can do as a scientist if you know how to do them. These are tricks that turn positive studies into negative ones or take one positive study and do a literature review which buries the positive study in what is essentially a whole mass of garbage so it looks like there is nothing there.

Comedian Lily Tomlin said, “No matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep up.” I see these same techniques and these same approaches across the scientific literature, and not just in terms of chemical hazards. They’re used by the deniers of global warming, the people who are essentially fueled by the big oil and coal companies trying to say that humans aren’t causing global warming. After finding the initial information, I dove into the literature, court records, and dockets where corporations and trades associations file comments with agencies, and I found the same names, the same tactics—the same alchemy in campaigns run by all these different industries.

I found some very powerful smoking guns: the sales pitches made by these product defense firms. They boasted about how they were able to delay regulation, what they were able to do, how they needed to change scientific studies around.

I found one for example around freon, which we know causes a hole in the ozone layer. The Hill & Knowlton company was saying, “We were able to essentially delay regulation for a couple of years when we were working for DuPont on this.” So what I’ve done is put all these smoking guns up on our website, which is www.defendingscience.org so anyone can download them and read exactly how these people work.

SP: How can scientists, policy makers, and journalists learn to spot these tricks?

Michaels: It’s very tough, and you have to be somewhat of an expert in the field. I see things in epidemiology immediately, but I have more trouble with the toxicology. Given that it’s difficult to do, and a layperson can’t just pick it up, it’s very important, first of all, that scientists who are in the field who see these problems write letters about them and put critiques up on the web. But I think the other thing that is more fundamental is to have a screen around conflict of interest.

We know the basic problem is that scientists who are paid to find a certain result will find that result. That’s certainly what we see in these studies over and over again: that scientists who work for these companies that actually manufacture uncertainty never find a result the sponsor doesn’t want.

So one thing that we should be demanding on the part of our scientific journals, and on the part of the regulatory agencies, is to ask, “Who paid for this study, and under what contract were these studies done?” If they were done with a secret contract, as is often the case, or a contract that says the sponsor has the right to see the results before they’re published. Those studies should immediately be in question and they should be looked at much more carefully.

SP: And there is research on this “funding effect” demonstrating a link between who’s paying for the research and the results of it, correct?

Michaels: That’s true, and we see that across the board. We saw it in tobacco; we see it all over the pharmaceutical literature; most recently in bisphenol A, a plastic chemical that’s used in baby bottles. There are well over a hundred studies that have been done—there’s a small handful paid for by the producers, the chemical companies making bisphenol A—all those studies show no effect. But 90 percent of the studies done by scientists independent of these corporations find an effect. It’s very powerful. We know that to really trust a study, it should be done independently.

SP: You write about how the sustained assault on scientific integrity under the Bush administration has actually demoralized a whole lot of scientists who are working for the federal government. Shortly after your book came out, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a survey saying that about 60 percent of the respondents of scientists at the EPA had personally experienced political interference with their work in the past five years. What is the toll of this interference and of this manufacturing of uncertainty on scientists, and how can we make sure that the government has good researchers in the future?

Michaels: It is a significant problem. As you said, the morale of government scientists has plummeted. Out best scientists chose to work in government because they see—or at least they saw—public service as a higher calling. They want to help in the nation’s efforts to improve human health, to protect the environment. Now many of them feel they can no longer make a contribution to the public good in their current job and they’re getting out or they’re just fading away; they’ve become marginalized. We have to reverse this trend by making public service an appealing career choice again.

I think we have to do this on two levels. The first and somewhat more obvious one is to set up structures and policies to ensure that government scientists will be respected and listened to—that they can publish their studies; that they can meet with other scientists; that they can get training that they need to keep up. We need of course the best scientists in the country. When one of our regulatory agencies has to go nose-to-nose with a multi-billion dollar chemical or pharmaceutical company, they need to have the best scientists; they can’t have scientists who can no longer go to scientific meetings to keep up with their field. So we have to make the job of scientists one that good scientists want to go into.

But on a more fundamental level, we have to change the national view of government work. Idealistic young scientists should feel the call to public service. In the past, Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy called young professionals and activists to serve their country. Our next president needs to make public service a desirable career goal—not just Americorps or the Peace Corps, but signing up with the EPA or the Justice Department with the understanding that people will work there for multiple years. We should see this as an important part of any homeland security program, because it is our future and our children’s future.

SP: How can people who are working scientific fields, or are writing about them, or who are dealing with policy present these ideas without getting into the complexities of the science or of the regulatory policy, which can confuse people?

Michaels: It’s very tough. But one thing that I’ve seen people start to do is come together as scientists to look at the scientific literature—to step back to a minute and say, “Here is a chemical that is in our environment; we’re very interested in this; there are studies being produced by government scientists, by university scientists, by corporate scientists.” There is a group of us in any university town—let’s come together and look at the literature almost as a journal club. Let’s get together and see what we think of the interpretations done by these different groups of scientists and start writing ourselves: put up a blog post and weigh into the discussion. Scientists can do that with a lot of credibility and they bring a lot of expertise because there are so many toxic chemicals out there, and producers of these chemicals can hire scientists to create fictions about whether or not they’re dangerous or safe. But there are independent scientists who don’t take those issues on because they’re often not funded to do so. Just as volunteers, I think that’s something we could do—little chemical investigation groups.

SP: Let me ask another question about one of the “tricks of the trade” you point out that seems pervasive, which is reanalysis of existing data in order to come to different conclusions from those at which a particular study might have arrived. Part of the problem here has to do with access to raw data from scientific studies, and the FDA is one particular agency that does generally have access to raw data from studies when they’re making decisions about pharmaceuticals. Can you talk about why access to raw data is so important in combating these nefarious reanalyses?

Michaels: It’s a fascinating issue. There’s an unequal playing field. There was a law passed by Congress in the late 1990s called the Shelby Amendment that gives public access to any study done by the government or paid for by the government and done by, say, university scientists. What has happened over and over again is corporations have gotten this raw data and paid mercenary scientists to reanalyze the data and to essentially make positive results go away. If you have raw data, you can do that.

Now the FDA also understands that the interpretations done by scientists paid by drug companies can’t absolutely be trusted; they want to do the analyses themselves. So the FDA says, “Give us the raw data when you’re looking at a drug’s efficacy or safety, and we’ll analyze it ourselves.” But for other agencies—the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or parts of the EPA, for example—companies submit studies and the agencies have to rely on those interpretations done by, essentially, the corporate scientists. Those corporate scientists, or mercenary scientists in some cases, have access to the raw data for the work paid for by the universities and by the government. So you have this unequal playing field where the raw data of some studies are available, yet important studies that are produced by corporations can’t be reanalyzed.

Given that you have this unequal playing field, we think everyone’s data should be made available in a way that any researcher should be able to look at those data, but under certain conditions. They have to be able to say not that, “We’re going to go fishing and figure out how we can manipulate these studies to make a positive result disappear,” but rather, “We’re going to set our hypotheses out in advance; we’re going to say this is how it will work—in consultation with the people who wrote the studies.” And then everybody can essentially play equally in the same field.

SP: Well let me ask another question about federal rules that have an impact on this playing field. You devote an entire chapter of your book to what you call “the most important Supreme court case that you’ve never heard of,” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, which gives trial judges the responsibility to determine the quality of scientific testimony from expert witnesses. Could you explain why this is a problem when we’re talking about public health?

Michaels: It’s an interesting problem because the Supreme court ruled in 1994 that judges must decide that the expert testimony to be given in court cases is “relevant and reliable.” Now most judges have no scientific training and they’re very much influenced by the attorneys—in many cases the corporate attorneys—who weigh in saying, “Don’t believe this study. This is junk science. Don’t let it in.” And so in some cases what judges are doing is saying, “Well this evidence doesn’t look like it makes any sense to me. I’m not going to let it in.”

That ends the court case, and the people who are suing a manufacturer of a dangerous product or a polluter essentially lose their case at that point. Litigation and court cases are a very important part of our public health protection system, especially now in the Bush years when the regulatory agencies have been handcuffed. There are numerous examples I talk about in the book of hazards that are under control only because we have lawsuits because the regulatory agencies really aren’t doing much. So you have this system now where the judges, in many cases very sympathetic to corporations, are using Daubert decisions as an opportunity to stop evidence from getting to juries so they can decide whether or not an injury is caused by a toxic substance.

Now in some cases, they’re very well meaning. But I think that it would be much more reasonable to let a jury decide whether or not there is evidence that some toxic exposure caused an illness. The judges don’t have a particular expertise in this and it’s too easy for them to throw evidence out. So I write about that quite a bit. It’s not a very well-know decision, but it’s a very important one. And I think it does have a big impact on public health.

SP: What do policy makers, journalists, or other readers most need to understand about the way that industry may manufacture uncertainty in dealing with science and public health?

Michaels: Well I think they have to see that this strategy—which tobacco came up with and is now so widely used—we have to expect it. Whenever independent scientists create some new information that shows a link between a toxic chemical, or something else, and human health or the environment, you expect to see the immediate response saying, “We’ve looked at this carefully; it’s not there; more research is needed.” You’ll hear the call for “sound science,” when in fact I think they’re looking for something that “sounds like science” but isn’t. I think what has to be done is that the public, the press, legislators, should demand independent evaluations of studies. You can’t trust interpretations or studies done by sponsors who have an interest in the outcome, and that’s the bottom line.

Related Articles

Restoring the Waters, by Sarah Bates

The rivers are rising as spring arrives in the Rocky Mountain West. In the annual pattern that sustains the environment and much of the economy of this region, water generated from melting snow feeds the streams, soaks the soil, and is diverted into ditches and reservoirs to serve millions of people and water their landscape. Here at the crown of the continent, the snowcapped peaks are far more than a pretty picture—they are an interest-bearing savings account we draw on throughout the year.

Unfortunately, the principal of this account is being depleted by the increasingly obvious impacts of global climate change. Even this winter’s abundant snowfall fails to overcome decades-long trends of increased temperatures and altered patterns of precipitation and spring runoff. The latest documentation of these impacts is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Water Program Strategy: Response to Climate Change.

The EPA, which is seeking public comment on the report by June 10, 2008*, provides an overview of the effects of observed and projected climate change on national water resources, with a focus on water quality and aquatic species. The draft National Water Program Strategy offers a whopping 46 “key actions” that the federal agency proposes to implement in response, ranging from water and energy conservation incentives to new and modified water quality regulatory programs. The proposed national actions are organized into four major goals:

• Use water programs to contribute to greenhouse gas mitigation
• Work with states and tribes to adapt water programs to projected new conditions due to climate change
• Strengthen the link between water programs and research activities
• Educate water professionals and stakeholders about projected climate change impacts on water resources.

Like many reports on water issues from Washington, however, the EPA’s National Water Program Strategy offers precious little detail about the projected conditions and appropriate policy responses to those projected conditions for the arid West. In part, this is explained by the frustrating lack of regional- or local-scaled modeling to project more accurately the effects of climate change on our western river basins and watersheds. The EPA proposes further work to better define projected conditions and responsive policies in particular regions of the country, including special attention to issues of drought and water supply in the West.

The world’s leading climate change research consortium, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is working to produce the finer-scaled regional models that will inform the EPA in this follow-up work. In the meantime, the IPCC’s 2007 report documented substantial changes already underway in the western United States, among them:

• Earlier runoff of snowmelt, stressing some reservoir systems
• Decreased spring and summer snow cover
• Increased annual precipitation falling as rain rather than snow
• Threats to reliable supply complicated by high population growth rates in western states where many water resources are at or approaching full utilization
• Increased wildfire potential
• Lowered levels of streamflow, which has already decreased by about 2 percent per decade in the central Rocky Mountain region over the last century
• Additional stress from decreased recharge to heavily utilized groundwater-based systems in the Southwest

Given these significant changes, the most pertinent sections of the EPA’s National Water Program Strategy propose actions that would stretch our limited water resources further through federal and state policies to encourage or require water conservation, re-use, and efficiency improvements. It is particularly encouraging to see the EPA emphasize the link between water and energy use—a notable sign of progress since the Natural Resources Defense Council exposed the astounding amount of energy consumed by water infrastructure in its 2004 report, Energy Down the Drain.

The EPA’s National Water Program Strategy characterizes water conservation both as a mitigation measure for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and as an important adaptation to drier conditions in the future. And the EPA is not the only federal agency that recognizes the important link between water and energy. In a report just released by the U.S. Department of Energy that analyzed a scenario in which 20 percent of the nation’s electricity is generated from wind power by the year 2030, the DOE noted that such a shift would reduce water use by approximately 8 percent. That’s a significant savings, roughly equal to the average share of western water withdrawals claimed by urban users.

The EPA’s National Water Program Strategy also acknowledges an important new way of thinking about our water and the rest of our environment in the face of what appear to be permanently shifting baseline conditions. The increasingly common droughts and extreme weather conditions will inevitably redefine what is “normal” as climate conditions continue to change. The EPA refers to this as a shifting “natural reference,” by which it means emerging dynamic conditions today challenge all of our assumptions about what to expect in terms of stream flows, seasonal temperature patterns, and just about every other reference point that has until now been based on conditions in the past.

This is an important point, similar to the message in a short but pointed essay published in the February 1, 2008 issue of Science, “Stationarity is Dead: Whither Water Management?” The authors caution policymakers against making “grand investments” in new water infrastructure without acknowledging the realities of “an uncertain and changing environment.” Their caution is well advised.

The annual onset of the Rocky Mountain snowmelt will continue to nurture welcome growth and renewal, but the seasonal changes may look very different to our children and grandchildren. It is encouraging to see the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledge the explicit effects of climate change on our precious water resources. It is essential to hold the agency accountable for implementing the action items outlined in its National Water Program Strategy, and to provide sufficient financial resources to support the additional regulatory, education, and research initiatives called for in this report.

Sarah Bates has written extensively on western water law and policy. She currently serves as deputy director for policy and outreach at Western Progress, a regional policy institute with offices in Missoula, Mont., Denver, Colo. and Phoenix, Ariz.

Western Progress seeks to establish sustainable water policies for the Rocky Mountain West that reflect the capacity of our water supply in the face of growth and climate change. Current projects focus on improving state in-stream flow protection programs, integrating land-use and water planning, and encouraging urban water conservation and re-use.

Update: The original end date for the comment period was March 27. It has now been extended to June 10.

He went on to emphasize the importance of identifying capable individuals who can fill science policy positions in advance of the next administration, and ensuring a smooth transition. “There is often a great mutual incomprehension between people who run the machinery before,” and those who subsequently assume those roles, he said.

Despite the fact that new advisors and administrators will assume roles as science policy makers, Marburger said that the landscape of science policy will not change. “The future is likely to be very similar to the past, regardless of who the President is, who the administration is,” he said. Broad changes in science policy values take substantial effort by many people over time, he said. To support this, he referred to stability of non-defense R&D as a total percentage of non-defense discretionary spending over the past several decades:

(Source: “Does Science Policy Really Matter?,” Daniel Sarewitz; AAAS, based on Budget of the U.S. Government FY 2007 Historical Tables.)

Marburger went on to discuss the increases in R&D funding during his tenure. “There’s a much greater amount of research money on the table than there was at the beginning of this administration,” he said.

The Bush Administration has indeed supported important areas of science funding. His slides showed the upward incline of funding since 2001. According to the AAAS, “overall federal investment in R&D would increase $4.9 billion or 3.5 percent to $147.4 billion” in the administration’s FY2009 budget. But AAAS and Science Progress advisor John Irons point out what Marburger failed to mention: despite these increases in dollar amounts, boosts to federal research funding have not kept pace with inflation for years.

Funding decisions are ultimately up to Congress, but questions of “how much” are simply one element of science policy. Another is the responsibility to provide clear and accurate scientific advice to the President and to Congress so that they can make informed decisions on public policy. Marburger is absolutely right that we need to start thinking now about who the capable individuals are that will fill science policy positions within the next administration, because the first job of those people won’t be ensuring more funding for R&D, it will be restoring scientific integrity to executive decision making. From inaction and delay on addressing climate change, to short-sighted policies on stem cell research, to the obliteration the EPA’s ability to protect citizens from environmental contaminates, the current administration’s assault on scientific integrity is well-documented and wearying.

The next President will need a team of science advisors who can help direct the billions of dollars the federal government spends on scientific research and development into efforts that build a low-carbon economy enhanced by innovation and opportunity for all workers, and a healthcare system that serves everyone who in the country. And they’ll have to push back hard against those who continue to wage war on science.

Amid growing controversy, Subcommittee On Energy and Air Quality Chairman Rick Boucher (D-VA) called the hearing to revisit the RFS just five months after Congress increased the mandate as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which passed at the end of last year. The polarized hearing left committee members with a wide array of considerations to mull over as they decide the fate of the RFS in the coming months. To make sense of it all, Science Progress breaks down the hearing to discuss its varying themes. First up, what’s right with the RFS and ways to make it better.

The hearing opened up with testimony from Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) who introduced her bill, H.R. 5236, better known as the Renewable Biomass Facilitation Act. The bill intends to expand the RFS to allow woody biomass collected from both federal and private forests to be used in the production of biofuel that would count towards the RFS. Woody biomass—the byproducts of forest management practices—are usually burned or left to rot, releasing carbon and methane into the atmosphere and could be put to better use as feedstock for biofuels, she argued. Most committee members used their allotted time to heap congratulations on Rep. Sandlin and pledge support for her bill. Using residual agricultural and forestry biomass as biofuel feedstock would avoid competition with food crops.

Committee members then heard from Robert Meyers, associate assistant administrator at the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation who touted the President’s proposed Alternative Fuel Standard, which would replace the RFS in 2010. The AFS would include alternative, but non-renewable fuels such as natural gas and coal-to-liquid (which is a boondoggle), hydrogen, and plug-in hybrids, in addition to those renewable fuels already included in the RFS. While the AFS ups the required amount of alternative fuels in the country’s fuel supply, it gives the EPA discretion to adjust or waive requirements to protect the economy or environment from any detrimental impacts of biofuel production. He also revealed that the EPA’s report on the environmental and health impacts of biofuels—requested by Congress in 2005—will be released in the coming weeks.

Nathanael Greene, a senior policy analyst at the National Resources Defense Council, praised the RFS for its forward-looking approach, but pressed Congress to ensure proper safeguards are in place to protect the environment and food prices. He commended the RFS for properly defining lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for biofuels to include the entire production process, as well as land use changes, which can severely alter the effectiveness of biofuels in reducing GHG emissions. He noted how the RFS requires the vast majority of new biofuels derived from cellulosic biomass to reduce lifecycle GHG emissions by 60 percent, a step away from a “more is better” policy to a “better is better” policy.

Greene recommended that Congress push the EPA to study environmental consequences of biofuels to ensure that science drives policy, not politics. He asked Congress to adopt a cap-and-trade program as part of a comprehensive approach to reduce GHG emissions and to reform the current ethanol tax credit to be technology-neutral and performance-based. Such an approach would incentivize biofuel innovation and keep Congress from picking the winners and losers in the biofuel marketplace, he argued.

During his testimony, John Stephenson, director of the Government Accountability Office’s Natural Resources & Environment department, criticized the thirty-two-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act for being “outdated” and “cumbersome.” TSCA requires the EPA to secure information on all new and old chemical substances and to regulate those chemicals found to cause unreasonable risk to the public or environment. This means the EPA, and not the chemical manufacturers, must prove the safety of chemicals. As history would suggest, this is a Sisyphean task for an already resource-strapped agency. According to senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), of the 80,000 or so chemicals currently used by industry, the Agency has only tested 200.

Is there a solution to this appalling situation? Stephenson believes the answer may lie in the Europe Union’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals program, also known as REACH. In 2006, the EU passed REACH, a 849-page piece of legislation requiring that all chemicals produced or imported in the EU of one ton or more in volume be tested for health and safety risks and registered with a central chemical authority. What makes the policy unique is that chemical manufacturers and importers must prove to federal authorities their chemicals are safe, not vice versa. (For a more in-depth analysis of REACH, see the BBC’s Q&A report on the program).

Stephenson went on to praise REACH, believing its model fosters a fruitful partnership between industry and government because authorities can better protect the public and chemical companies can avoid litigation if hazardous chemicals are identified upfront rather than down the road. Critics argue such approaches could hamstring the chemical industry’s ability to innovate; force companies to move off-shore, costing U.S. jobs; and forcing many small businesses under. Minority witness V.M. Delisi of Fanwood Chemical Inc. echoed these concerns, suggesting it was a “myth” to believe chemical companies have unlimited sources to deal with the onus of proving the safety of their products. Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) countered such fears, saying companies that have created safer alternatives to toxic chemicals have seen their products kept out of the market because weak regulation favors cheaper, more hazardous chemicals. Stronger regulation would foster innovation and safer options, she argued. Annette Gellert, co-founder of the WELL Network, a nonprofit focused on the environment and its connection to the health of children and families, noted that if the U.S. maintains weak chemical regulation it could become a dumping ground for toxic products that cannot be sold in Europe and other stricter countries.

As Chris Mooney explained in his recent column, the EPA is in the midst of a complete meltdown. After censoring its own scientists, demonstrating disdain for scientific integrity, and failing to prevent mercury pollution, repairing the damage done to the EPA by the Bush Administration will require the upmost attention of the next President. But some are left to wonder why it even came to this stage. As Tuesday’s hearing wrapped up, Chairman Boxer’s (D-CA) said simply: “No one can explain to me where there is room for politics when you are looking at the health and safety of the American people.”

We’d be fortunate if scientific integrity was the only trouble spot at EPA these days.

At long last, the UCS findings came out last week, and sure enough, the results are appalling. The nonprofit group received responses from 1,600 EPA scientists, and found an “agency under siege from political pressures”: 60 percent of respondents said they’d personally experienced political interference in their work in the past 5 years. Meanwhile, just over half of respondents—783, by number—said they could not freely share their findings with the media. These results might help explain recent actions by a group of unions representing EPA’s 10,000 employees, who in March broke away from the agency’s management, citing, among other complaints, systematic undermining of EPA’s scientific integrity principles.

But to be honest, we’d be fortunate if scientific integrity was the only trouble spot at EPA these days. Even as its scientists languish, the agency’s regulatory decisions are also being dramatically undercut on issues ranging from global warming to mercury pollution. Not only does EPA have problems heeding the research; it also has huge problems following the law.

Take mercury. As I’ve written here at Science Progress, a very conservative D.C. Circuit court just shot down EPA’s bizarre industry-friendly regulatory scheme for this toxic metal, saying the agency had employed the “logic of the Queen of Hearts.” Something very similar has happened on global warming—in Massachusetts vs. EPA, the agency lost at the U.S. Supreme Court over its failure to regulate car and truck greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. EPA had tried, in typical conservative fashion, to exploit scientific uncertainty in order to avoid the compulsion to regulate, but the (once again) conservative court would have none of it. That was in April of 2007.

A year later, the agency has still done nothing but study, study, study what to do next.

In short, we’re witnessing the meltdown of EPA.

But perhaps most outrageous is EPA’s treatment of California’s request—in the absence of serious action by the agency—to set up its own program for regulating vehicular greenhouse gas emissions. As National Journal recently reported in a scathing article on the agency’s failings entitled “Vanishing Act,” investigations by House Democrats suggest that EPA’s professional staff “overwhelmingly” recommended that agency administrator Stephen Johnson let California move ahead on its own. He didn’t.

All of these scandals, taken together, have people seriously comparing the state of EPA today to its previous nadir, under anti-regulatory zealot Ann Gorsuch Burford during the Reagan years. Reports and word of mouth (some of which I myself have heard) suggest that morale is exceedingly low at the agency these days—which, again, would explain the unions’ action. In short, we’re witnessing the meltdown of EPA, and there’s only one conceivable rescue: A new president who makes resuscitating the agency a key priority.

In this respect, one would imagine that any of the three candidates would improve matters—but at the same time, none of the three are currently talking about it much. That needs to change; Americans want a functional government, a competent one, and given how bad things have gotten at places like EPA during the Bush administration, that won’t happen without thorough housecleaning, to say nothing of a re-commitment to principles of scientific and regulatory integrity.

Perhaps most important, though, will be to re-establish some serious distance between agencies like EPA on the one hand, and branches of the White House—like the Office of Management and Budget or the Council on Environmental Quality—on the other. There’s much evidence—including from the recent UCS investigation—suggesting these political branches are really calling the shots at EPA, and that this lies at the root of many or even all of the recent scandals. The original concept for the functioning of the regulatory state was that independence and professionalism would reign at the agencies doing the people’s business. It’s staggering how far we’ve drifted from that vision.

Chris Mooney is a contributing editor to Science Progress and the author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs at The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.

“Tobacco figured this out, and essentially it’s the same model,” said David Michaels, who was a federal regulator in the Clinton administration. “If you fight the science, you’re able to postpone regulation and victim compensation, as well. As in this case, eventually the science becomes overwhelming. But if you can get five or 10 years of avoiding pollution control or production of chemicals, you’ve greatly increased your product.”

Mitchell Cheeseman, deputy director of the FDA’s office of food additive safety, said the agency is not biased toward industry.

“The fact is, it’s industry’s responsibility to demonstrate the safety of their products,” he said. “The fact that industry generated data to support the safety I don’t think is an unusual thing.”

The FDA may be correct in assuming that it’s perfectly usual for industry groups to generate data that supports their claims. The positive correlation between funding source and desirable study outcomes is strong in other fields like nutritional research. But the simultaneous assumption that demonstrating safety is an industry responsibility and that industry groups will generate data that supports their assertions of product safety is a virtual abdication of regulatory responsibility.

Both the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency regulate BPA. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a hearing tomorrow on the EPA’s oversight of toxic chemicals. Let’s hope they hold at least one agency charged with protecting public health accountable.

The survey covered employees at EPA headquarters, in each of the agency’s 10 regions around the country and at more than a dozen research laboratories. The highest number of complaints about political interference came from scientists who are directly involved in writing regulations and those who conduct risk assessments such as determining a chemical cancer risk for humans.

Nearly 400 scientists said they had witnessed EPA officials misrepresenting scientific findings, 284 said they had seen the “selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome” and 224 scientists said they had been directed to “inappropriately exclude or alter technical information” in an EPA document.

Nearly 200 of the respondents said they had been in situations where they or their colleagues actively objected to or resigned from projects “because of pressure to change scientific findings.”

This is merely the latest in a string of black marks on the reputation of the Agency. Along with Administrator Stephen Johnson’s dismissal of his staff’s recommendation in favor of California’s request for a waiver to regulate tailpipe emissions, a strong juridical rebuke of the the Agency’s failure to properly regulate mercury emissions, and internal rifts between the staff union and Agency management over the handling of scientific information, this is further indication of an EPA without adequate leadership, and an executive branch with a contempt for scientific integrity.

Avery Palmer at CQ Today reports that Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) is looking to subpoena the Environmental Protection Agency for documents related to carbon emission regulation. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must regulate carbon emissions, but the agency has yet to provide a draft regulation proposal it agreed to have ready by the end of last year.

Russell Dinnage of Greenwire profiles Christopher De Rosa, a toxicologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who recently accused his CDC bosses of censoring (subscription) two studies on chemicals that were making people sick.

The Mercury News reports that business leaders from leading tech companies called for an increase in H-1B visas for skilled foreign workers at a recent briefing hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Oracle Vice President Robert Hoffman hopes Congress can provide “short-term relief” by doubling the current H-1B visa cap.

Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection has launched a three-year, $300 million advocacy campaign to raise awareness about global climate change and methods to reduce emissions in the United States.

Hill Heat glosses the past few tumultuous weeks for EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson, who was hit with a tidal wave of criticism for denying California’s Clean Air Act waiver request and is now failing to cooperate with congressional investigations into the matter.

Ed Silverman at Pharmalot asks if publicly financed clinical trials would better protect the public and lower the cost of new drug testing.

Defense Tech reports that U.S. military officials are concerned about the national security threat of adversaries tapping into online mapping services like Google Maps to obtain vital intelligence.

Liz Borkowski at The Pump Handle offers a nuanced assessment of this week’s news about testing that revealed trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in drinking-water supplies and the rationales for disclosing and not disclosing the information.

Respectful Insolence responds to the recent “Broken Pipeline” report on NIH funding problems by arguing that universities share a part of the blame for the troubles of young scientists.

Eighteen states pledged or planned to adopt California’s emissions standards in an effort to curb global warming. The denial only continues the Bush Administration’s foot-dragging approach to global warming, as Center for American Progress Senior fellow Robert Sussman explained in a recent column.

The Post reports that union leaders and employees cited decisions on fluoride drinking-water standards and mercury emissions from power plants as further instances in which the management flagrantly disregarded the Agency’s own standards for scientific integrity. As Chris Mooney pointed out in a column on a recent juridical rebuke of the mercury decision, the calculated dismissal of scientific evidence damages the entire decision-making process and exposes citizens and the environment to harmful pollutants. While the regrettable decisions of the current EPA management will likely be reversed in the not-too-distant future, the damage to the integrity of data-driven decision making and the scientific community is a scar that may linger.

Hayes is careful to warn that the primary “motor” in an effective emissions reductions framework is cap-and-trade; offsets are just the “grease” on the fringes of the system. In his proposal, companies regulated under cap-and-trade would only be allowed to meet up to 15 percent of their emissions allowance with “offsets.” These strictly regulated “compliance credits” would form Tier I of Hayes’s proposed system. Funds used to purchase “compliance credits” would support verifiable emissions reductions projects that would not have otherwise happened. The program would also include incentives for Tier II projects that do not meet the strict rules for “compliance credits.” These Tier II projects could, for example, encourage energy efficiency or improved forestry and agricultural projects. While these secondary programs would not be eligible for support from purchases of “compliance credits,” Tier II could serve as an incubator for projects that might eventually meet the strict regulations to qualify for Tier I status. Voluntary markets for offsets could continue to exist alongside this regulated framework, as they do in the European Union, he says.

Science Progress spoke with Hayes about the possibilities for rethinking offsets and ensuring that they both reduce emissions and fund new technologies that will support a low-carbon economy. This interview has been edited and condensed.

Andrew Plemmons Pratt, Science Progress: You see a problem with the word “offset” itself and you argue in your paper that the term has been used so loosely, “as to have virtually no meaning.” Instead you suggest that the term “compliance credit” would be better. What would “compliance credit” provide that the current conception of “offsets” does not?

David Hayes: Right now, the concept of offsets in the United States is completely unregulated. There are many organizations that will sell you, as an individual, something they call a carbon offset. That’s very attractive to many individuals and businesses because they are interested in counterbalancing their carbon footprint and they need help. There are obviously things individuals can do to reduce their carbon footprint in terms of buying more efficient automobiles and reducing energy use at home, etc. But there is no getting around the fact that individuals and business typically cannot get to zero without investing in an outside project that will remove carbon that would otherwise go into the atmosphere.

Entrepreneurs and many well-meaning organizations have responded by selling carbon “offsets” that purportedly have been created through investments in unrequired reductions of carbon emissions, but the offset market is unregulated and there are significant questions about whether many of the offsets that are being sold in the marketplace have environmental integrity and are in fact reducing carbon in a way that otherwise would not occur without the purchase of offsets. So “offsets” is a slippery and almost meaningless term.

“Compliance credits” are a special type of offset, if you will, that would come into play in connection with adoption of a mandatory cap-and-trade program. It would be fundamentally different from today’s offsets because unlike today’s unregulated environment, a compliance offset would only be approved if it met stringent standards established and policed by the EPA.

SP: How would compliance credits work for an individual company under cap and trade?

Hayes: Let me provide you with a little more context first. The idea of a cap-and-trade system is that most greenhouse gas emissions would be capped and regulated. There would be a limit on most sources of greenhouse gases. Over time that cap would be shrunk and the limits would become tighter and that’s how we would reduce, over time, our carbon emissions. But as a practical matter, we are not going to be able to capture all emission sources under a cap-and-trade system. There will remain a significant number of emission sources—maybe 20 percent of the total—that are unregulated under cap-and-trade. The concept of an “offset,” in this new system, is that we provide an incentive to reduce emissions from these otherwise unregulated sources. Some projects that reduce these unregulated sources may be of a high enough quality, and enforceable with enough assurance, that they can be used to demonstrate an emissions reduction by the regulated entities that have responsibilities to reduce their emissions. That’s what a compliance credit is all about. Offsets are a fundamentally different construct when you have a mandatory cap-and-trade system. Instead of just opening up a bazaar for the sale of unregulated offsets, there is a policy goal of seeing if we can incentivize reductions in those emissions sources that are not covered by the cap.

SP: Some of the industries that would fall under the cap-and-trade regulation might be power plants. If, for instance, I was operating a power plant, could you walk through the process of how I would be able to function under a cap-and-trade system, account for some of those emissions using compliance credits, and what kind of projects those compliance credits might support?

Hayes: If you operate a power plant you are going to need to obtain allowances that will match your emissions. The allowances will be in the form of a right to emit carbon dioxide in the amount at which you are emitting it. And there will be a number of mechanisms that you can use to obtain these allowances. You will likely need to purchase some allowances, probably through an auction. (In fact, most of the allowances will likely be purchased in this way.) Also, if you make investments and reduce your emissions more than you are required to under the cap, you may generate excess allowances. And if you don’t need them, you’re going to be able to sell them to another power plant. That’s the “trade” part of cap-and-trade.

Another source of some allowances will be, under my scheme, compliance credits–that is, proven reductions of carbon obtained from unregulated sources. Those credits can be purchased by the power plant to help meet a part of its budget for allowances. Under my proposal and the Lieberman-Warner proposal, there is a limit of 15 percent on how much of the budget can be met through these compliance credits. That limitation is intended to ensure that compliance credits are the “tail” and not the “dog.” The primary focus of cap-and-trade has to be on major emission sources making investments in their own reductions.

SP: The compliance credits emitters invest in might be going to projects of different sorts, and you’re very careful to explain in your paper that not all emission-reducing projects are created equal. This is why some would fall under the strict rules of your compliance credits. You point out that measuring emissions from different projects—particularly in forestry and agriculture—can be difficult, making it hard to verify their impact. Could you talk a little bit more about the importance of splitting credits between Tier I compliance credits and Tier II projects?

Hayes: This is a very important concept. We should be interested in capping major emission sources and reducing those emissions in a regulated way. But we should also give attention to unregulated emission sources, and that’s where the compliance credit idea fits. We should provide a range of incentives to reduce those emission sources that are otherwise unregulated. Compliance credits are sort of the “gold standard”; they are going to be the surefire, verifiable projects that everyone is so confident are providing new emissions reductions that we are comfortable using them for regulated compliance purposes. But there are lots of other incentives we can provide to reduce emissions from unregulated sources.

We have a lot of those incentives in place already. There are incentives for you and me to buy a Prius. There are lots of programs at the state and local level to encourage folks to reduce electricity use or weatherize their homes. I think it’s important that we recognize—and this is what I call Tier II—that there are a basket of incentives already in place to reduce emissions that are otherwise unregulated. We should identify those incentives; we should have a disciplined way to see how they are working; to see how cost effective they are; and doing so will provide a number of benefits. It will help us decide which of these incentives is working best. It will give us more information about emissions from these sources that are otherwise unregulated, and in some cases, it may identify real opportunities for major emission reductions that should qualify for a Tier I compliance credit. The other advantage of thinking about Tier I and Tier II together is that it takes some of the pressure off of forcing projects into Tier I—the gold standard compliance credit. If you don’t have a suite of incentives, then there is enormous pressure for projects that shouldn’t qualify for compliance credits to get pushed into qualifying. Either you get the pot of gold and you create a project that reduces carbon in a way that meets these tests and has real value on the carbon market, or you are left with nothing. That sort of stark, on/off switch can lead to a lack of discipline in how compliance credits are awarded.

In agriculture and forestry in particular, there are special challenges just in terms of the science, with regard to how you measure reductions of carbon. I do not think that all agriculture and forestry projects have to be in Tier II and can only be incentivized through means other than compliance credits. Some projects should qualify for compliance credits. The challenges in measurement and other issues (additionality and “leakage”) are going to have to be confronted and addressed, however. It’s just going to be harder for agriculture and forestry to meet the compliance credit test. For agriculture and forestry and other unregulated sectors, we should look at the whole suite of incentives and apply those that make the most sense.

SP: How would a well-regulated program change the current voluntary retail market for carbon offsets that consumers buy to counterbalance emissions from plane travel, commuting, or home energy use? You suggest in your paper that this voluntary market for offsets could still exist even under a cap-and-trade regime but that a retail market might also need to fall under the Federal Trade Commission. Can you talk a little bit about how that voluntary market for offsets could still exist with more regulation for these compliance credits?

Hayes: One might think that the voluntary market would evaporate once you have a comprehensive cap-and-trade system in place because much of the voluntary market is taken up by companies that recognize they are going to have compliance obligations and are putting their toe in the water and trying to hedge their carbon risk. Once you have a full cap-and-trade system, those companies will be covered by the system and their path will be clear in terms of what their obligations are, so there will be less impetus for their participation in the voluntary offset market. But I’m persuaded—from my work at Stanford and also the experience in Europe where a voluntary market continues to thrive along side the mandatory Kyoto market—that there is enough interest in making investments in projects that may produce carbon reductions that the voluntary market will continue in the shadow of a mandatory cap-and-trade program. And, in my view, the voluntary market should be allowed to continue to operate as long as there are willing buyers and sellers that are experimenting and developing ideas for additional carbon reduction projects that later might mature into something that has regulatory significance. All the power to them! What we don’t want is for the ordinary citizen to be left to the vagaries of an unregulated, voluntary offset market. There are two ways to address this.

The first way is to provide access so that you and I can buy these compliance credits that are the gold standard—regulated, proven reductions—that a regulated entity can purchase and use for compliance purposes. Individuals and businesses should also be able to purchase those credits and retire them. Given that opportunity, individuals who buy these credits will know that they are investing in a project that has real carbon benefits. These credits will be more expensive than what they would buy on the unregulated voluntary market, but they will know that they’re getting what they are paying for. The other point is that if there is a voluntary market that continues—and I think there should be—there needs to be more regulatory oversight by the Federal Trade Commission so that there is no fraud or misrepresentation in connection with the sale of offsets in the voluntary market. Responsible individuals and businesses that are interested in purchasing carbon “offsets” should be sure they are getting what they pay for.

SP: What about the Lieberman-Warner bill itself? What are the prospects for a system like this getting incorporated into the final version of that legislation and why precisely should offsets, and this new thinking about offsets, take regulatory priority upon the eventual enactment of a successful bill?

Hayes: I don’t think that offsets should take regulatory priority. Offsets are grease; they are not the motor. The motor is the cap and the mandated reductions under the cap, the auction of allowances. The offset concept kicks in at the margin. That doesn’t mean that it’s not important, however. Compliance credits and other incentive programs under Tier II can provide an important complement to the mandatory cap-and-trade program by focusing on, and helping to reduce, otherwise-unregulated emissions sources.

I do think it’s important that when legislation is passed that we get on with the task of identifying standards and protocols for projects that meet compliance credit standards because investors are interested in investing in projects that qualify. The EPA needs to get on it. It’s very unfortunate that the current EPA isn’t well down the road in terms of doing this. They have been held back by the policy decisions of the Bush administration.

The Lieberman-Warner bill that was introduced in the fall has an offset title in it that has some features of the program that I am laying out in more detail. As for the prospects of Lieberman-Warner this year, that’s a bigger question that is certainly is not going to turn on the question of how offsets are addressed. I certainly hope that legislation moves. Even if it doesn’t, I think the debate in the next few months is extremely important because it will establish the base line of sensible legislation that I hope will move very quickly when a new president is elected.

SP: It’s obviously a complex issue. What should we be sure to take away?

Hayes: The primary point that I would like to get across is that it’s difficult but very important to change the negative perception that many have about offsets. The bias against offsets is understandable, given the unregulated way that they are now dealt with. It’s tough to do that 180 turn and to look at the world in a different way. But the world is going to be very different when we have a mandatory cap-and-trade system. In that context there is a place for compliance credits and for a broader incentive structure to deal with these unregulated emission sources. So I’m proselytizing and looking for converts, asking folks to be nimble in their thinking and to be willing to shed their understandable bias against offsets because we are talking about a very different context and a very different regulatory world.

David Hayes served as Consulting Professor at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment. He is a partner at Latham & Watkins, a Senior Fellow at the World Wildlife Fund, and a Senior Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute.

But when Brown recently wound up on a three-judge panel charged with assessing the legality of the Bush administration’s controversial scheme for regulating mercury pollution from power plants, it seems not even she could countenance our government’s behavior. Brown joined her two fellow judges in a unanimous ruling that powerfully rebuked the Bush Environmental Protection Agency, which—despite having had essentially all of the hard work already done for it by the previous administration—had failed to get a toxic metal that damages the brains of human fetuses and young children out of the environment and food supply.

The administration’s behavior on mercury pollution has been stunning, indefensible, arbitrary, embarrassing, disgusting—and more.

The administration’s behavior on mercury pollution has been stunning, indefensible, arbitrary, embarrassing, disgusting—and more. Let us briefly review the facts. Mercury is a naturally occurring heavy metal that gets released into the air through industrial processes, including coal burning. Once in the atmosphere, it is eventually deposited back on land or in bodies of water, where microorganisms convert it into methylmercury, a strong neurotoxin. This poisonous substance ascends the aquatic food chain and accumulates in larger, predatory fish—or in the humans who eat them. Pregnant women run the gravest risk, as eating mercury-tainted fish can lead to neurological damage to their children.

In short, mercury is nasty, nasty stuff—and it poses dangers to women who are or may become pregnant, mothers who are nursing, and young children. So you’d think it would be a no-brainer that our government would follow the law—in this case, the Clean Air Act—to get this substance taken care of—quickly.

But of course, that’s not what happened.

Late in the Clinton years, the EPA had decided that it was “appropriate and necessary” to stringently regulate power-plant emissions of mercury as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. After all, the agency’s scientific study of mercury hazards, completed in 1998, simply compelled strong regulatory action. It identified “a plausible link between emissions of mercury from anthropogenic sources (including coal-fired electric utility steam generating units) and methylmercury in fish.” Indeed, the agency added its estimate that “roughly 60 percent of the total mercury deposited in the U.S. comes from U.S. anthropogenic air emission sources.”

There’s an established process that has to be followed if you decided to change how you regulate a pollutant, and the EPA didn’t even bother.

But rather than implementing the inherited rules, which would have demanded that utilities use the “maximum achievable control technology” to cut mercury emissions, by 2005 the Bush administration had decided to short-circuit the Clinton administration approach and go a different route. It proposed a market-based “cap and trade” program that would have resulted in substantially weaker reductions. Cap and trade programs might work well for emissions of substances, like greenhouse gases, where we worry about the global total rather than strong regional accumulation. But much of mercury pollution is local—and if you give individual emitters the option of deciding for themselves whether to cut emissions or just accumulate extra permits to pollute, dangerous mercury “hot spots” may result.

As I wrote in several columns in 2005, the groundwork for this decision had been laid in typical conservative “war on science” fashion. First, right wing attacks on the accepted science of mercury pollution sought to downplay the risks to children and pregnant women. Meanwhile, cost-benefit analyses—which, if performed correctly, would have shown a very strong benefit to protecting children’s brains—were instead rigged to make it look like the Bush administration had done the economically sensible thing, when of course it hadn’t. (For a more thorough analysis of how the administration made a mockery of cost-benefit analysis on mercury, see here, as well as exposes from the Government Accountability Office and the EPA’s own Inspector General.)

All of this led up to the 2005 EPA decision to back away from the Clinton administration’s strong mercury regulatory approach, and substitute the weak, industry-friendly solution. Following this move, environmental groups promptly sued—as did a number of U.S. states concerned about mercury risks. And now, the D.C. Circuit’s unanimous ruling brings down the entire house of cards. Or, as the court disdainfully put it, the agency had relied upon “the logic of the Queen of Hearts.”

Indeed, the D.C. Circuit didn’t even have to demonstrate the arbitrariness of EPA’s rigged cost-benefit analyses. Instead, the court simply pointed out that EPA failed to follow the proper procedures when it took mercury off of one regulatory list—the right list, the one the Clinton administration had selected—and stuck it on another. There’s an established process that has to be followed if you decided to change how you regulate a pollutant, and the EPA didn’t even bother.

So now it’s back to the drawing board, and given standard government timelines, we’ll have to wait until the next administration for strong mercury rules to kick in.

That’s what’s so tragic: The Clinton administration had demonstrated, fully ten years ago, the dangers of mercury pollution and moved to regulate it. But the Bush administration upended the entire process and essentially wasted a decade.

Americans have been protected, at least to some extent, in those states that have outdistanced the federal government and taken strong steps on their own to address mercury risks. In general, though, the mercury story sounds a lot like the global warming story: We’ve had an administration that denied the science, rigged the economics, and did nothing. And we had it for two terms. Finally it’s coming to an end, but the costs may be incalculable.

Chris Mooney is the author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs on The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.

The monitoring research may have come at the right moment, because the EPA recently eased its reporting requirements for companies that annually release less than 2,000 pounds of toxic chemicals into the environment. The Pump Handle reports that under the new rules, “more than 3,500 facilities will be able to skip filing more than 22,000” Toxics Release Inventory reports each year. They point to a GAO report that criticizes the process that produced the new regulations, saying it was hasty and based on an insufficient economic analysis.

U.S. labs that handle deadly germs have reported “100 accidents and missing shipments since 2003,” reports the AP. No one was hurt, but the number of incidents are going up with number of labs approved to handle the pathogens. The House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing today.

The latest on framing science: Matthew Nisbet & Dietram Scheufele in The Scientist on The Future of Public Engagement (now out from behind the subscription veil). Nisbet has it on Framing Science.

How the vagaries of scientific publishing don’t necessarily lead to better science getting published.

The EPA decided not to approve highly toxic methyl iodide as a pesticide. The agency balked after receiving a letter from 54 scientists, including 6 Nobel laureates, who “were astonished EPA was considering approving such a toxic chemical for agricultural use.” (Via Wired Science.)

PBS and Wired premier a new science magazine TV series last night, which (not to be confused with the publication’s blog) is called Wired Science.

Smithsonian magazine just issued a Fall 2007 special issue titled “37 Under 36: America’s Young Innovators in the Arts and Sciences,” comprised of 37 crisply written profiles of smart and creative young men and women making a difference. Oftentimes, the editorial content of magazine packages such as these come across as glossy as the accompanying photos, especially in special issues. In this case, the written words and the photos are equally compelling.