You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Science' category.
Congressman George Miller (D-CA) and Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) have strongly urged Labor Secretary Elaine Chao to withdraw the proposed rule on occupational health risk assessment which her Department submitted to OMB on July 7. Their letter says:
“we are deeply disappointed that the Department of Labor is working to slip through a rule that may have a profound negative impact on the health and safety of American workers.”
by Susan F. Wood, PhD
Recently the New York Times and RHRealityCheck reported on a leaked internal proposed regulation that calls for more and different enforcement of anti-discrimination provisions for health care providers. The provisions are forms of conscience clauses that do not allow discrimination in hiring or promotion of health care workers who do not wish to perform abortion or sterilization (or indeed in the reverse, no discrimination against those who do perform abortions or sterilizations) in federally funded settings.
The draft regulation goes into detail outlining the history of the laws protecting the conscience of health providers and entities and then outlines the problem. It seems that the central concern is not discrimination against those who won’t perform abortions, but that the US Department of Health and Human Services sees a real problem with requiring health professionals (and anyone in the healthcare workforce) to be involved with contraception, even if it is part of the job. The majority of the section outlining “The Problem” concerns states that have passed laws or issued executive orders requiring pharmacies to dispense contraception, including emergency contraception, and that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.
From the regulation:
When I’m teaching a class or speaking to a group about the “funding effect” – the close correlation between the results desired by a study’s funders and those reported by the researchers – people often ask how researchers do it. How is it that researchers paid by a sponsor usually get results favorable to the study’s sponsor?
I’ve try to help answer that question in an article that appears in today’s Washington Post, entitled It’s Not the Answers That Are Biased, It’s the Questions. (A longer discussion of the funding effect is in my book Doubt is Their Product).
Having a financial stake in the outcome changes the way even the most respected scientists approach their research. Scientists make many decisions about the doses, exposure methods and disease definitions they use in their experiments, and each decision affects the result.
I’m repeating myself here, but it’s for a good cause. At the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at George Washington University School of Public Health, we’ve launched a multi-part study to understand the current policies surrounding scientists’ work at government agencies and to create recommendations for policies that support strong science and the appropriate role of scientists and researchers within our health and environment agencies.
Many talented government scientists leaving the federal agencies that protect our health and environment, and one of the ways to attract and retain more scientists to these important positions is to ensure that the rights and responsibilities of government scientists are clearly delineated and protected. In addition to the problems of political interference with science that have made headlines in recent years, government scientists also face a unique set of challenges involving balancing their work as researchers, regulators, and applied scientists with their roles as employees of structured, hierarchical organizations.
The major piece of the research is talking to actual government scientists – and that’s where we need your help. If you’re a current or former government scientist with an advanced degree and at least five years of experience working for a science-based health or environment federal agency, we’d like to interview you (more details below). Or, if you don’t meet that description but know people who do, we’d be grateful if you’d pass this information along to them, and/or direct them to this webpage.
Here are the official details:
Obviously, the economy and Iraq are big issues on voters’ minds, but a new poll from Scientists and Engineers for America shows that candidates would also be smart to demonstrate their support for science. In fact, SEA’s Michael Stebbins reports that although the organization expected positive answers to their questions, they were stunned by the overwhelmingly affirmative response:
Eighty-six percent of those polled, for example, say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who is committed to preparing students with the skills they need for the 21st Century through public investments in science and technology education.
Similarly, 84 percent said they would be more likely to support a candidate who is committed to reducing the cost and improving the quality of healthcare through public investments in science and technology. And 52 percent indicated they would be much more likely to support candidates who expressed that science and technology is a priority for them.
Susan announced this project a few weeks ago, and it’s worth repeating. At the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at George Washington University School of Public Health, we’ve launched a multi-part study to understand the current policies surrounding scientists’ work at government agencies and to create recommendations for policies that support strong science and the appropriate role of scientists and researchers within our health and environment agencies.
Many talented government scientists leaving the federal agencies that protect our health and environment, and one of the ways to attract and retain more scientists to these important positions is to ensure that the rights and responsibilities of government scientists are clearly delineated and protected. In addition to the problems of political interference with science that have made headlines in recent years, government scientists also face a unique set of challenges involving balancing their work as researchers, regulators, and applied scientists with their roles as employees of structured, hierarchical organizations.
The major piece of the research is talking to actual government scientists – and that’s where we need your help. If you’re a current or former government scientist with an advanced degree and at least five years of experience working for a science-based health or environment federal agency, we’d like to interview you (more details below). Or, if you don’t meet that description but know people who do, we’d be grateful if you’d pass this information along to them, and/or direct them to this webpage.
Here are the official details:
We’ve written before about how important it is for the presidential candidates to let the public know where they stand on science issues. Now, the Scientists and Engineers for America Action Fund, in partnership with 15 prominent scientific and engineering societies, is asking Congressional candidates where they stand on science-related issues, including climate change, water, and research funding.
SEA and its partners developed a seven-item questionnaire and are sending it out to the candidates in districts where primaries have been held. They’re posting responses as they come in, along with additional information, like the voting records of incumbents – see their page on Danny Davis (IL-7) for an example. And they’re also asking that science supporters email their local candidates (you can find yours using their zip code tool):
We’d like to flood their in boxes today with hundreds of emails from concerned citizens. Politicians pay attention to their voters, and together we can show that there is a constituency for science. We can make science and technology a prominent part of the 2008 elections.
If we’re going to tackle the many health and environmental challenges facing our country and our world, we’re going to need to fund research and strengthen science-based agencies. The next Congress’s approach to science will play a major role in determining how well we meet these challenges.
By Susan F. Wood, PhD
Much has been written at the Pump Handle and elsewhere in the media and scientific literature about ensuring that science appropriately drives government policies. Questions and concerns have abounded regarding inappropriate non-scientific interference, while at the same time many health and environmental agencies (and the scientific staff within them) continue their incredibly important work in research, evaluation, development, regulation and service delivery. Several organizations have done surveys and developed principles on scientific integrity including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Scientists and Engineers for America.
At the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at George Washington University School of Public Health, we are launching a multi-part study to get a strong handle on the written policies regarding the role of scientists in government that are currently in place, an understanding of how they are implemented at various agencies, and what recommendations can be made to specifically create policies that support strong science and the appropriate role of scientists and researchers within our health and environment agencies.
This is where we need your help:
We are seeking current and former government scientists to participate in interviews for the Scientists in Government project. Interviews will be conducted in Summer 2008.
If you are a current or former government scientist (with an advanced degree and at least five years of experience working for a science-based health or environment federal agency), you can help us in our work to strengthen policies on science in the federal government. Participation involves a phone or in-person interview of 1-2 hours. Our study is approved by George Washington University’s IRB (#030823).More information about the project can be found at: http://www.defendingscience.org/Scientists-in-Government-Project.cfm.
If you are interested in participating, please contact Ruth Long at 202-994-7993 or eohrwl@gwumc.edu. If you know others who might be interested in participating, please send them to this webpage: http://www.defendingscience.org/Participate-in-the-Scientists-in-Government-Project.cfm
Susan F. Wood, PhD is Research Professor at George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, where she is part of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP). She also served as Director of the FDA Office of Women’s Health from 2000-2005 and is a member of the Board of Directors for Scientists and Engineers for America.
At a summit at the World Science Festival, panelists agreed that the U.S. is losing its stature as a leader in science. Panelists cited two reasons: diminished funding for research, and “a perceived high-level disdain for science.” Keith B. Richburg of the Washington Post explains:
The Union of Concerned Scientists has released another disturbing report about political interference with government science. For Interference at the EPA, they surveyed EPA scientists from all of the agency’s scientific program offices and 10 regional offices, and from more than a dozen research laboratories, to learn about the extent and type of political interference with EPA science. Like UCS’s previous investigations on the Food and Drug Administration, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and federal climate scientists, this one found significant administration manipulation of science that is supposed to serve our health and environment.
I’m sure none of our regular readers will be surprised to hear that 889 scientists (60% of the 1,586 who completed surveys) personally experienced at least one incident of political interference during the past five years, or that 516 scientists knew of “many or some” cases in which EPA political appointees inappropriately involved themselves in scientific decisions. The survey did turn up a few things that were less predictable, though – and the report is well worth reading in any case, because it’s an excellent compilation of what ought to be going wrong at EPA, where the problems are, and how to fix them.
No, not V-8 the vegetable drink, but C8, the common name for ammonium perfluorooctanoate, an ingredient in Teflon and other non-stick products. Ken Ward of the Charleston Gazette reports today on the levels of perfluorooctanoic acid in the blood of about 69,000 residents living near the DuPont Co.’s Parkersburg, WV plant where C8 was manufactured. The results are posted on the West Virginia University’s Health Science’s center website. The median C8 blood-level was
“more than five times the U.S. general population.”
The highest median blood-concentration levels (i.e., 132 ppb) were found among residents who get their tap water from the Little Hocking Water Association in Ohio. Ward’s story indicates the median level in the general U.S. population is 5 ppb.
We’ve written before about the problems with conflicts of interest on EPA scientific advisory panels. In particular, we think scientists working for product defense firms, whose money comes from clients seeking to avoid regulation of their products, ought to be barred from such panels. Now, a group is raising concerns about bias on an EPA panel reviewing the brominated flame retardant deca – but the charge comes from an industry group that’s concerned about the state-government scientist chairing the panel, and the EPA has acceded quickly to their wishes.
The date is set for the presidential candidates’ Science Debate 2008 – it’ll be April 18th at Philadelphia’s Franklin Institute – so now the push is to get candidates’ commitment to participate. Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Barack Obama have been invited, and the fact that the debate is set for four days before the Pennsylvania primary may encourage them to make it a priority.
Blogger and author Chris Mooney, one of the campaign’s co-organizers, asks bloggers, scientists, and concerned citizens to contact the campaigns to encourage their participation; write letters to local papers to spread the word; and help swell the list of supporters from 13,000 to 15,000. (You can go here to add your name to the list, and here to tell friends about the effort.)
On his Dot Earth blog, the New York Times’ Andrew Revkin wonders whether the candidates will show up:
The push for a presidential candidate science debate is stronger than ever: Yesterday, the National Academies joined other prestigious organizations to co-sponsor the effort.
“This would provide a nonpartisan setting to educate voters on the candidates’ positions on key science, technology, and health challenges facing the next administration, while giving the candidates an opportunity to discuss issues that are often overlooked in presidential candidate debates but that are critical to U.S. competitiveness,” the presidents of the NAS, NAE, and IOM said in a statement.
“A discussion focused on such issues as how to spur innovation, improve science and math education, confront climate change, and guide advances in biotechnology would do much to inform the American electorate,” the statement adds.
As we’ve noted before, one major problems over the last few years has been the administration’s tendency to ignore, distort, or suppress scientific findings and advice that didn’t jibe with its political goals. Will focusing public attention on scientific issues really help counteract this?
In his last state of the union address, President Bush glossed over the seriousness of some of the most pressing problems facing our country, and suggested they could be solved with something that’s been in short supply during his tenure.
“Global climate change” got one brief mention, as something that the nation is committed to confronting with cleaner and more energy-efficient technology. Unacceptable rates of uninsurance and spiraling healthcare costs were obliquely referenced with a stated goal of “making health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans.” Bush invoked technology as the cure for our energy and health care woes, and said this about the energy, medical, and physical sciences research that’s required:
Remember Julie MacDonald, the Department of Interior appointee with industry connections but no biology degree, who altered scientific field reports to minimize protections for endangered species? There are plenty of wildlife scientists who haven’t forgotten about her or about the larger problem of the Bush administration meddling with environmental science, and two dozen of them descended on Capitol Hill last weekend to make their concerns known. The Washington Post’s Elizabeth Williamson explains:
by Susan F. Wood, PhD
We are excited to be starting up a new research project here at the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy: Scientists in Government: An Examination of their Rights and Responsibilities in Civil Society. The goal of this initiative is to provoke and shape the public discussion about the rights and responsibilities of government scientists, as part of the larger effort to ensure that government uses the best science to protect and promote the health and wellbeing of Americans.
We are looking for a research associate/qualitative researcher who will lead the process of collecting and analyzing data on the role and functioning of scientists employed by government agencies. This person should have experience designing and conducting qualitative research, including the development of interview instruments and analysis. The candidate should also have a masters degree in public health, sociology, management, organizational structure, or a related field; 3 – 5 years of direct research experience; and experience in qualitative research design and implementation.
Are you that person or do you know someone who is?
email a cover letter and CV to eohsfw@gwumc.edu
Susan F. Wood, PhD is Research Professor at George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, where she is part of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP). She also served as Director of the FDA Office of Women’s Health from 2000-2005
Tomorrow’s Science Friday radio program will feature a segment on the Science Debate 2008 campaign, which calls for the presidential candidates to devote a debate to science-related issues. You can listen live online from 2 - 4pm Eastern time, or check your local NPR station’s listings to see when the show airs.
Here’s what we wrote last month about why such a debate is needed and which questions we’d like to see the candidates answer:
Science bloggers Bora Zivkovic (also known as Coturnix) and Reed Cartwright, assisted by a panel of judges, are putting together an anthology of science blog posts from the past year – and I’m honored to report that my post “Popcorn Lung Coming to Your Kitchen? The FDA Doesn’t Want to Know” is included.
Open Laboratory 2007, like the 2006 edition before it, will be published by Lulu.com and soon available for order. You can also read all of the blog posts by clicking on the links at A Blog Around the Clock. It’s fascinating collection, sure to amuse as well as to educate. Here are some of the posts that Pump Handle readers might find particularly interesting:
By David Michaels, Susan Wood, and Liz Borkowski
We’ve joined with our fellow scientists and citizens to call for presidential candidates to devote a debate to an issue we haven’t heard enough about in campaign appearances so far: science. The “Science Debate 2008” campaign is a nonpartisan effort that states:
Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy.
We here at The Pump Handle are particularly concerned about the way that political appointees in this administration have suppressed, distorted, and ignored scientific evidence and communication about important issues, including global warming, emergency contraception, and a range of other public health issues. Some officials have failed to address important issues such as protecting consumers from dangerous drugs or chemical hazards. At the same time, the White House has issued Executive Order 13422, which erected new hurdles that make it harder for regulatory agencies to do their jobs, and has installed (via recess appointment) an anti-regulatory extremist to oversee the administration’s regulatory policies. In short, scientific federal agencies are not able to use science as they should to protect our air, water, drugs, and food and to address large-scale health and environmental problems. It is imperative that the next president reverse these damaging trends and restore scientific integrity to federal policy. Therefore, we suggest that presidential candidates answer the following questions:
by Susan F. Wood, PhD
It’s not often, if ever, that an FDA sponsored report calls out for more resources, more direct action and organizational change for FDA. The recently released report (PDF) by the Subcommittee on Science and Technology for the FDA Science Board does just that. Although I wouldn’t necessary agree with all of the recommendations, and would call out for a few more, the report identifies some of the real needs at FDA for strengthened science. The FDA Science Board, an Advisory Committee to the FDA, has issued earlier reports, but none with the timeliness and potential impact of this one. Most of the press coverage has been on the call for expanded resources - which are truly needed - but the report also identifies some of the scientific infrastructure needs that trail behind our expectations of this critical public health agency. I don’t know if FDA expected this type of report, but hopefully it can be useful as a way to move the agency forward.
From the report:
by Susan F. Wood, PhD
FDA recently announced two draft guidances regarding advisory committees, one on public disclosure of financial conflicts of interests and the other on voting procedures.
Devra Davis’s The Secret History of the War on Cancer is getting some wonderful, well-deserved reviews. Davis is a well-known an epidemiologist and director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh. Robin Mejia, in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, writes
The book is a must-read for those concerned about their own health or that of their loved ones. It’s also fascinating.
Mejia is right - the book is filled with fascinating historical material, linked with a focus on cancer prevention right now. To Davis, this means more than just promoting healthier lifestyles, but addressing the effects of the many chemicals we’re exposed to every day. Read the rest of this entry »
After reviewing previously undisclosed documents*, the Charleston Gazette’s Ken Ward writes how a group of notable occupational health scientists and epidemiologists felt DuPont misrepresented the scientific evidence to-date about the health risks associated with PFOA (ammonium perfluorooctanoate, a.k.a. C8). Ward writes about concerns expressed in private email exchanges among scientists on the firm’s Epidemiology Review Board (ERB), an independent and external committee, when DuPont made a big public announcement (and to its employees at the Washington Works plant (near Parkersburg, WV)) about results of a worker-health study.
by Susan F. Wood, PhD
Over the last 2 days, we’ve seen two political leaders speak out on the need for science and evidence to drive our policy decisions in areas such as health, food safety, enviroment, climate change, and renewable energy.
Yesterday, the University of California at Irvine announced that it was reappointing Erwin Chemerinsky as dean of its new law school. Chemerinsky had been offered the job, but then the University withdrew the offer after the LA Times published a Chemerinsky op-ed critical of the Bush administration. After an outcry from scholars and an in-depth conversation between Chemerinsky and UC Irvine Chancellor Michael Drake, Chemerinsky was re-offered the position.
This incident has spawned 163 news articles (according to Google News), while another case involving academic freedom gets far less attention. Goldie Blumenstyk reports in the Chronicle of Higher Education:
By Susan F. Wood, PhD
Two things appear to be major bones of contention in determining the final version of what is now named the “FDA Revitalization Act of 2007″ (FDARA). And they both related to public transparency and public accountability.
By Liz Borkowski
Here in the U.S., people seem to like the idea of our government ensuring that we’ve got clean air, clean water, and healthy workplaces, and that our exposure to toxic substances is limited. However, we also keep electing politicians who make it hard for federal agencies to ensure these things.
We’ve written before about problems at OSHA, where workers suffer from preventable harm while officials emphasize voluntary compliance at the expense of standard-setting, and at FDA, where a rush to review new drug applications leaves post-market drug safety under-resourced. While presidential appointees heading these agencies deserve a share of the blame (a hefty share, in the case of OSHA’s Edwin Foulke), the legislation governing agency activities often erects hurdles that can slow progress to a crawl. A new report from Environmental Defense shows how this is happening at EPA with toxic chemical legislation.
by Susan F. Wood, PhD
The last week of August is full of anniversaries for me, both public and personal. On August 24, it has been one year since the partial approval of Plan B emergency contraception over-the-counter (OTC) for those over 18 years old. Two days later on August 26 is the 87th anniversary of the day that women got the right to vote, Women’s Equality Day. It also is the 2nd anniversary of the day that FDA leadership once again denied the approval of Plan B OTC despite all of the evidence and support within FDA for its approval. August 31st, just 5 days later, marks the two-year anniversary of my resignation from FDA as Assistant Commissioner for Women’s Health in response to the Aug. 26th decision.
