Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process, cosponsored by The Science & Environmental Policy Project and George Mason University's International Institute, May 24-25, 1993, at The Madison Hotel, Washington, D.C. Attendees: 160

SUMMARY:"Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process" was the first conference to focus solely on problems--such as the selective or misleading use of data by scientist-activists, lacking scientific peer-review--that have crept into the research process as a result of environmental activism and pressures on federal policymaking. Some 160 journalists, scientists, policy analysts, business representatives, Congressional staff, and government officials attended the day and a half program.

Noting that a handful of scientists have made exaggerated claims of impending health and environmental catastrophes, conference panelists attempted to gauge the seriousness of the problem, why some scientists misrepresent the issues, and whether current legislative and regulatory procedures ensure that objective, unbiased scientific information reaches policymakers. Panelists discussed the effects on the media of scientist-activists and others seeking to influence public opinion, and how well we safeguard scientific integrity. Legislators and agency officials were criticized for enacting legislation or regulations--with far-reaching impact on national economies and standards of living--that fail to assess adequately the reality and extent of health and environmental problems, and plunge ahead prematurely with costly and ineffective "solutions."

Dr. Frederick Seitz (standing), former president of Rockefeller University, poses a question to the economics panel at the conference.

MEDIA: The Science & Environmental Policy Project invited some of the country's most influential science and environmental journalists as panelists at a special media session. These included Keith Schneider of the New York Times, Boyce Rensberger of the Washington Post, Gregg Easterbrook of Newsweek, Michael Fumento of Investor's Business Daily (and author of Science Under Siege), Robert Bidinotto of Reader's Digest (which is published in 17 languages worldwide, reaching more than 100 million readers), and Ellis Rubinstein, news editor of the prestigious journal Science.

These journalists revealed that a revolution is underway in environmental reporting. Reporters are now looking at information coming from environmental activist groups with greater skepticism, recognizing that these groups often have political agendas and vested financial interests in raising public alarms. Also, reporters are now getting the training necessary to more accurately interpret scientific research, and exercise greater scrutiny of the scientific evidence underlying predictions of environmental catastrophes.

Journalists attending the various sessions included (NBC) WRC-TV meteorologist and president of the American Meteorological Society Bob Ryan, columnist Tony Snow of the Detroit News, editorial page editor Tom Donlan of Barron's, James Freeman of PBS "Technopolitics," syndicated columnist Ken Adelman, Earl Lane of Newsday, Zelda Novak of "Evans & Novak," independent producer Doug Spiro of ABC's "20/20," Beau Brindler of Thompson Newspapers, John Merline of Investor's Business Daily, editor Peter Spencer of Consumer's Research magazine, contributing editor Peter Samuel of National Review, reporter Joe Collum (and camera crew) of WWOR-TV in New York, syndicated columnist Bill Kramer, Richard Miniter of Insight magazine, and editorial writer Ken Smith and reporter David Coia of the Washington Times.

Representatives of scientific and trade publications included Pamela Zurer of Chemical & Engineering News, Peter West of Education Week, Melanie Scott of Food Chemical News, Stanton Miller of Environmental Science & Technology, Carol Brick-Turin of World Perspectives, editor Daniel Greenberg of Science & Technology Report, and editor-in-chief Kevin Finneran of Issues in Science and Technology, which is published by the National Academy of Science.

HIGHLIGHTS: The conference discussion underscored two themes: (1) the need for stringent, open, external peer-review of the scientific basis of federal environmental actions, and (2) distortions in the teaching of environmental issues, i.e. "Who peer-reviews what is being taught under the guise of environmental education?"

KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho), spoke on the frustration policymakers have with the lack of firm scientific conclusions--particularly with regard to land-use and endangered species issues--and the personal agendas of some of the government officials charged with enforcing environmental regulation.

PANEL #1: RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT, with Dr. Michael Gough, Office of Technology Assessment; Prof. John Graham, director of the Risk Analysis Project, Harvard University School of Public Health; Dr. Christopher Hill, senior policy analyst of the RAND Critical Technologies Institute, formerly with the National Research Council; Mr. Fred L. Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, formerly with the Environmental Protection Agency; and Prof. Kip Viscusi of Duke University, editor of Risk Assessment.

Dr. Gough noted that since 1951 the age-adjusted mortality in the United States has dropped by 40 percent, and that the Environmental Protection Agency has effective jurisdiction over sources that generate less than 1 percent of the cancers. The cancer rate is stable, he said,but asthma, tuberculosis, and AIDS are on the rise. Dr. Graham felt risks were not being overblown, but that AIDS and homicides were the major health risks to address. Dr. Viscusi highlighted the growing "cost per cancer case avoided" statistic, noting that more recent regulations seemed to be costing more than earlier ones. Dr. Hill pointed out that scientists can often be wrong; it's the nature of the process. Experience, he said, is a much better guide than theory. Fred L. Smith focused on the risk-risk issue and accused the EPA of "bending the science."

LUNCHEON SPEAKER: Peter Huber, policy analyst, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, author of Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. A provocative speaker, Huber pointed to excesses and inequities in court cases that threaten the fabric of the scientific enterprise. luncheon address by Peter Huber

PANEL #2: THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDING GLOBAL WARMING, OZONE DEPLETION, AND ACID RAIN, with Elliot Abrams, senior vice president, meteorologist, Accu-Weather, Inc.; Dr. Robert Jastrow, Wilson Observatory, president, George C. Marshall Institute; Dr. Henry Linden, director, Energy and Power Center, Illinois Institute of Technology; Prof. Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Science; Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia, president, The Science & Environmental Policy Project.

Panelists presented concerns that scientist-activists were distorting the issues by (1) presenting only part of the data, (2) distorting logic, (3) repeatedly stating their case in apocalyptic terms, (4) announcing findings at press briefings before other scientists have had a chance to examine their research, (5) using science to advance a political agenda, for example, "Nuclear Winter," and (6) intimidating other scientists through coercion.

PANEL 3: THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, AND HEALTH RISKS FROM CHEMICALS AND AIR TOXICS, with Dr. Philip Abelson, deputy editor, Science; Dr. Donald Barnes, director EPA Science Advisory Board; Dr. Susan K. Harlander, chief of research and development, Land 'o Lakes, Inc.; Dr. Suzanne Huttner of UCLA and director of the Biotechnology Project of the University of California System; Dr. Henry Miller, chief science advisor to the director, U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The panel contrasted the FDA and EPA approaches to biotech regulation. Dr. Abelson stated that in many instances we are getting very small, theoretical benefits for very large, real costs. In his view, risk assessment is not science; at best it is pseudo-science. Dr. Huttner stated that scientists serving on advisory committees end up compromising their positions due to the public pressure involved. The public review should have the same rigor as peer-review of publication, something that is hard to achieve when the traditional anonymity of peer review is shed by adopting a public review process. Dr. Miller cited recent NAS reports that say that biotech does not pose unique risks, and yet, the agencies have failed to follow through on the implications of this judgment. He said that scientists need to oppose needless regulation as individuals and through professional groups. Dr. Harlander told why scientists "don't get involved" in the public policy arena: isolation, ignorance, inexperience in communication, indifference, integrity. She described her firm's experience with "greenmail"; i.e. the threat of boycott unless the firm conformed to an outside group's political agenda.

PANEL #4: THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NON-SCIENCE-BASED REGULATION, with Dr. Robert Crandall, senior fellow, The Brookings Institution; Dr. Robert Hahn, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Dr. Raymond Kopp, director, Quality of Environment Division, Resources for the Future; and Dr. Robert Tollison, director, Center for Study of Public Choice, George Mason University.

Dr. Crandall stated that many health and safety regulations are solutions looking for a problem. Asbestos regulation was late in the day (OSHA action and tort suits had already reduced much of the threat), was very expensive ($29 million per cancer case avoided), and poorly done (remanded by the courts). TSCA Section 6 is not needed; after 16 years of searching, EPA can't find a risk substantial enough to regulate under it. A limited analysis gives rise to the hypothesis that the cost per cancer case avoided is doubling every 4 years. Dr. Hahn suggested specific process changes to correct excesses, i.e. regulatory oversight, sunset provisions, peer-review, and strategic use of political appointees. Dr. Kopp concluded that science doesn't count at all; perceptions are arguably more important than reality. Science, he said, enters late in the legislative stage and is late in the regulatory stage as well. Therefore, decisions are made and deals are struck while the scientists are still in the lab. What they eventually say doesn't impact at all, i.e. NAPAP report and the Clean Air Act. Kopp felt that society has not developed a rational way to address the generic problem of concentrated benefits--i.e. risks to a very few--with diffuse costs, which, in the aggregate, are quite large. Dr. Tollison observed that there are not incentives for scientists to drive to arrive at a conclusion, i.e. NIH will not find cures--if they do they are out of business. Another example: EPA reacts negatively to a front page "good news" Washington Post story on the projected recovery of the ozone "hole," fearing that the EPA's program will no longer be needed. His solution: change the incentives--rather than gives grants, give awards to those scientists who actually deliver the goods.

PANEL #5: HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, NO EASY BEAT, with Gregg Easterbrook, contributing editor, Newsweek; Keith Schneider, national correspondent, the New York Times; Boyce Rensberger, science writer, the Washington Post; Michael Fumento, energy and economics reporter, Investor's Business Daily; Ellis Rubinstein, news editor, Science; and Robert Bidinotto, staff writer, Reader's Digest.

Gregg Easterbrook called the March 1993 series of five articles in the New York Times the most visible manifestation of a revolution that has been building on the health and environmental beat over the past few years. It reflects a maturing of reporters and editors, and portends a more balanced, even-handed, analytical approach. Just as the motives of those with industry affiliations are questioned, so, too, the motives of those with environmentalist affiliations are questioned, i.e. what are the financial ties in terms of fundraising, vested support, political agenda that might be advanced by a certain spin on the science, etc. In his view, "conventional wisdom" on environmental issues is changing. He talked about the "coming paradigm shift" that has kept environmental issues at the forefront of public concern for more than two decades. Questions about motive, tactics, small risks, big costs, "bad science," political agendas, etc. are all related to this reappraisal. Easterbrook felt that environmental reporting is getting better, just as reporting on legal and business matters got better over the period of a decade as editors saw to it that reporters received training in those specialized fields and got a professional respect/understanding for the discipline.

Keith Schneider, author of the series Easterbrook referred to, now sees environmental problems as being more complex than often perceived--and reported. It is difficult for reporters, since "there is no firm place to stand." It used to be a simple "victim-oriented" beat. Now it involves science, politics, finance, etc. Print journalists are more likely to become arbiters of the debate; they are asking deeper questions. In contrast, TV continues to play the "victim" theme. He believes that nothing less than the credibility of the environmental community is as stake.

Boyce Rensberger finds that "sometimes environmentalism is okay." Reporters need to avoid extreme and emotional views on both sides of a story. Reporters need to know and be able to communicate in the language of science. They need to appreciate and respect the caveats and uncertainties associated with scientific investigation. He said he was astonished at the negative reaction from the EPA on his "good news" story that early action by EPA (and others) will be successful in reversing the depletion of stratospheric ozone. Rensberger stated that some at the EPA (1) feel that this story will cause the country to reduce its ardor for carrying through on positive plans; or (2) feel threatened that their raison d'etre will disappear along with the ozone "hole."

Michael Fumento said he believes that many journalists on the environmental beat don't know the substance of the issues they cover and/or won't do the work to find out. They need to have broad expertise in many fields, including economics. Given the time constraints, often it is not easy to devote the time and resources that the story deserves. In his view, there are some "bad" scientists who are more than willing to put their views forward, and that they are generally glib, articulate, and quotable. Most scientists, he said, are not willing to get involved in putting forward the truth on an issue.

Robert Bidinotto, said that the media have not done a good job of reporting environmental stories. "Just look who gets quoted all the time." Media bias is simply a reflection of cultural bias. He blamed much of the misrepresentation of environmental issues on television, but also stated that TV reporting is not above being vindictive. For example, "60 Minutes" producers felt they took a bad rap on the Alar story, even if it did get them good ratings. Subsequently, they did something of a number on the Natural Resources Defense Council, promoters of the Alar scare.

Ellis Rubinstein covered some of the same ground, and recommended the Science Institute for Public Information as a good scientific source.