In the past year, three landmark reports have called into question the Bush Administration's use of science, charging the Administration with regularly censoring, suppressing and distorting scientific analysis from federal agencies and undermining the quality of scientific advisory panels. Leading scientists - including 48 Nobel Laureates , 62 National Medal of Science winners, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences-have called for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. Excerpts from the reports follow below.

1. Union of Concerned Scientists Report
2. The Waxman Report "Politics and Science in the Bush Administration"
3. Scienceinpolicy.org Report

1. Union of Concerned Scientists "Resorting Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science"

"Successful applications of science have played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world's most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences. Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle.

"When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government's own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies.

"For example, in support of the president's decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration ahs consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.

"The administration also suppressed a study by the EPA that found that a bipartisan Senate clean air proposal would yield greater health benefits than the administration's proposed Clear Skies Act, which the administration is portraying as an improvement of the existing Clean Air Act. 'Clear Skies' would, however, be less effective in cleaning up the nation's air and reducing mercury contamination of fish then proper enforcement of the existing Clear Air Act.

"Misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes can have serious consequences. Had Richard Nixon also based his decisions on such calculations, he would not have support the Clean Air Act of 1970, which in the following 20 years prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths and millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Similarly, George H.W. Bush would not have supported the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and additional benefits of comparable proportions would have been lost.

"The behavior of the White House on these issues is part of a pattern that has led Russell Train, the EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, to observe, 'How radically we have moved away from regulation based on independent findings and professional analysis of scientific, health and economic data by the responsible agency to regulation controlled by the White House and driven primarily by political considerations.'

"Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government's outstanding scientific personnel:

" Highly qualified scientists have been dropped from advisory committees dealing with childhood lead poisoning, environmental and reproductive health, and drug abuse, while individuals associated with or working for industries subject to regulation have been appointed to these bodies.

" Censorship and political oversight of government scientists is not restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior, when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration's policies or with the views of its political supporters.

" The administration is supporting revisions to the Endangered Species Act that would greatly constrain scientific input into the process of identifying endangered species and critical habitats for them protection.

" Existing scientific advisory committees to the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons, and to the State Department on arms control, have been disbanded.

" In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at the Livermore, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.

"The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease if the public is to be properly informed about issues central to its well-being, and the nation is to benefit fully from its heavy investment in scientific research and education."

2. The Waxman Report "Politics and Science in the Bush Administration"

"The American people depend upon federal agencies to promote scientific research and to develop science-based policies that protect the nation's health and welfare. Historically, these agencies - such as the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental Protection Agency - have had global reputations for scientific excellence."

"Recently, however, leading scientific journals have begun to question whether scientific integrity at federal agencies has been sacrificed to further a political and ideological agenda. As the editor of Science wrote earlier this year, there is growing evidence that the Bush Administration "invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation."

"At the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, this report assesses the treatment of science and scientists by the Bush Administration. It finds numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings. These actions go far beyond the typical shifts in policy that occur with a change in the political party occupying the White House. Thirteen years ago, former President George H.W. Bush stated that "[n]ow more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research . . . government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance." Today, President George W. Bush's Administration has skewed this impartial perspective, generating unprecedented criticism from the scientific community and even from prominent Republicans who once led federal agencies."

"The Administration's political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the President, inaccurate responses to Congress, altered web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications, and the gagging of scientists. The subjects involved span a broad range, but they share a common attribute: the beneficiaries of the scientific distortions are important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups."

"The report identifies over twenty scientific issues affected by the undermining of science, including:

• Abstinence education, where performance measures were changed to make unproven "abstinence-only" programs appear effective;
• Condom use, where information about condom use and efficacy was deleted from CDC's web site;
• Global warming, where reports by the Environmental Protection Agency on the risks of climate change were suppressed;
• Missile defense, where Defense Department officials presented misleading information on whether a functional system could be quickly deployed; and
• Wetlands policy, where comments from scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service on the destructive impacts of proposed regulatory changes were withheld.

Other affected topics include HIV/AIDS, agricultural pollution, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, environmental health, lead poisoning, oil and gas exploration, prescription drug advertising, stem cells, substance abuse, drinking water, women's health, workplace safety, and Yellowstone National Park."

"Across this wide range of issues, the report identifies the three principal ways in which the Bush Administration has pursued its agenda: by manipulating scientific advisory committees, by distorting and suppressing scientific information, and by interfering with scientific research and analysis….Examples include:

• Appointing Unqualified Persons with Industry Ties.
• Appointing Unqualified Persons with Ideological Agendas.
• Stacking Advisory Committees.
• Opposing Qualified Experts.
• Including Misleading Information in Presidential Communications.
• Presenting Incomplete and Inaccurate Information to Congress.
• Altering Web Sites.
• Suppressing Agency Reports.
• Scrutinizing Ongoing Research.
• Obstructing Agency Analyses.
• Undermining Outcome Assessment.
• Blocking Scientific Publication.

3. Scienceinpolicy.org Report

"We are a group of scientists (graduate students, post-docs, faculty and others) trying to voice our growing concern that the Bush administration misuses science in environmental policymaking. This administration is not the first to distort, misuse, or disregard environmental science, but the degree to which they do so is far beyond that of recent US administrations. If you share these concerns, and are an ecologist, biologist, climatologist, oceanographer, environmental engineer or other environmental scientist, please read the statement below. If you agree with it, please sign our statement."

"Statement:

The Bush administration justifies environmental policies by misusing and misrepresenting science. The administration's harmful positions on climate change, pollution, forest management, and resource extraction ignore widely accepted scientific evidence. When the administration invokes science, it relies on research at odds with the scientific consensus, and contradicts, undermines, or suppresses the research of its own scientists. Furthermore, the administration cloaks environmentally damaging policies under misleading program names like "clear skies" and "healthy forests." As a result, the public and the media often wrongly believe that this administration uses sound science to help promote a healthy environment. In reality, the best available science indicates that President Bush's policies will cause and exacerbate damage to the natural systems on which we all depend."

"Our goals:

We believe that the public benefits when sound science is incorporated in policymaking decisions. To this end, it is the obligation of the scientific community to inform the public and the media when science is misused. We believe that our policy analyses are objective and non-partisan. We welcome alternate interpretations of objective scientific information, and will readily incorporate additional credible evidence as it becomes available."

"We seek support for the statement from a broad range of environmental scientists in order to raise public awareness, and to encourage policymakers to rely on sound science when creating and defending their policies. To this end, we plan to publicize this statement as widely as possible (see the January, 2004 issue of Bioscience). However, we believe the amount of publicity the statement will receive depends on the number of scientists who endorse it. Thus, we hope you will sign the statement and alert your colleagues to this site."