a ‘World Scientists’ Call for Action’ at the Conference of the Parties to the FCCC at Kyoto in December 1997, at which the Kyoto Protocol was agreed. It also took the lead in opposing the Bush Administration’s ‘Sound Science Initiative’ issuing a statement on 18 February, 2004, signed by over 60 prominent scientists, voicing their concern over the ‘misuse of science’
by the Bush administration. Among the signatories were several names active on the issues of conservation biology and climate change we have studied here, including Paul Ehrlich, John P. Holdren, Stuart Pimm and Kevin Trenberth, a leading climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Other scientists took part in UCS’s role in attack- ing Bjorn Lomborg and Stephen Schneider, for example, has represented it at climate negotiations.
The Union of Concerned Scientists goes beyond issuing warnings to humanity and calls to action. For example, it also cooperated with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) in distributing a 42- question survey to more than 1400 USFWS biologists, ecologists, botanists and other science professionals working in Ecological Services field offices across the United States seeking their perceptions of scientific integrity within the USFWS, as well as political interference, resources and morale.
This points to a politicization of the administrative branch of government in the United States which predated the presidency of George W. Bush, and which provides important context to the claims that Bush has waged a ‘war on science’. The argument here is notthat Bush has not politicized science;
he and his administration are clearly hostile, for example, to use of human cloning for stem cells. Rather, the point is that science in the US had already been politicized, and this facilitated the further politicization of science by the Bush administration, because it could see that previous administrations had allowed politicization in line with their ideology, and the Bush admin- istration thought it acceptable for them to do the same.
Voters and EPA Administrator Carol Browner one with Citizen Action.
Many other senior staff had past associations with groups such as the Wilderness Society (Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Jim Baca and Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Alice Rivlin).
Staff with associations with WWF, Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, the Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, and Audubon Society held positions in agencies such as OMB, Department of Agriculture, Interior, Bureau of Land Management and EPA. Tim Wirth, former Democratic Party Senator from Colorado, who had allowed his 1988 committee hearings on climate change to be orchestrated by James Hansen and Friends of the Earth for maximum political impact (see p. 173), was given a prominent position in the State Department and exerted considerable influence on both the negotiation of climate treaties and the IPCC.
These appointments came on top of a substantial politicization of lower levels of the public service, with environmental groups formed specifically to change government policy from within (regardless of the party in office). The Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics was formed in 1989 and had around 12 000 members in 1998 and a budget of
$900 000, according to the Encyclopedia of Associations(Gale Research, 1998). It works to advance conservation and oppose ‘overuse’ of public land by timber companies, mining firms and cattle owners. Its Executive Director Andy Stahl was involved in sponsoring the production of peer- reviewed science to support the Spotted Owl campaign to reduce old- growth logging in the Pacific Northwest, and was also the person claiming that the planting of Canadian lynx fur was a test for laboratories rather than a fraudulent attempt to secure further protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Nature editorialized in support of those who had faked evidence of Canadian lynx (Nature, 2002; Dalton, 2002), and was quickly taken to task for supporting this unjustified planting of samples (Mills, 2002) by a researcher involved in this project and another, the integrity of which was impugned by the fakery (Schwartz et al., 2002). The Forest Service had in 1998 contracted John Weaver who worked for the environmental group, the Wildlife Conservation Society. He had reported lynx hair in both Oregon and Washington in areas where nobody expected them. These results were used in a Forest Service application for listing the lynx as an endangered species, but the samples were later found to be from bobcats and coyotes.
Further evidence could not be found. Then, in the 1999 and 2000 survey seasons, seven employees sent in samples labelled as wild lynx. While they claimed to be testing the lab, they were discovered only because one employee blew the whistle the day before he retired (Strassel, 2002).
138 Science and public policy
A similar organization, for federal employees in other agencies, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, was founded in 1993, and operates with a budget a little smaller than FSEEE, to work with and on behalf of employees to effect change in the way resource agencies conduct environmental management. PEER encourages whistle blowing and
‘anonymous activism’, and distributes ‘Undercover Activist’ boxer shorts.
When the efforts of PEER and FSEEE operating at lower levels in federal organizations are added to the capture of the upper levels by executive staff linked to activist groups, and the spread of activist conservation science in the Society for Conservation Biology are considered (see below), the extent of the politicization of environmental science and its harnessing to politics in the United States can be appreciated.
The point here is not that this is particularly unusual, but to place in context the claims which greeted the overturning of this established order by the Bush Administration when it came to power in 2001. The move to require ‘sound science’ was attacked by groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists as representing the politicization of science. But the fact of the matter was that environmental science in the United States federal government was already highly politicized and the scientists whose views were informing policy making were very much activist scientists. The Bush Administration was merely sweeping aside the status quo and turning the tide in a different direction. And it might well have been true that some industries welcomed this change and donated to the Bush campaign in anticipation of it, but this ignores the extent to which the status quo ante under the Clinton Administration was also heavily supported financially, though proportionately more by liberal-inclined charitable trusts.
The point of this is that science is the poorer for its politicization by both sides of politics – both for its own sake, and for what this means for public policy. While the thesis of this book is that noble cause corruption gives as much cause for concern about the reliability of science as the pernicious influence of money and interests such as reputation (and that such factors might be more pernicious because they are less obvious), many noble causes in the United States are themselves heavily subscribed financially.
There is substantial financial backing for causes such as environmental pro- tection, not through the small donations of millions of members and sup- porters, but through the grants of numerous charitable trusts – ironically, established on the basis of wealth generated by industries such as oil.
This picture of substantial funding using loopholes to allow tax deductibility for political activity and for ‘black marketing’ is all presented by numerous right-wing organizations which have assembled the funding trails through examining their IRS Forms 990 (available at GuideStar.org).
Such groups are concerned to expose this unseen and ‘undue influence’ on
the Left. Our concern here is not with the legitimacy of such influence activ- ity, but simply to establish that it exists and is significant on the Left of pol- itics, and among those supporting environmentalism, just as it exists on the Right and among those opposing environmentalism. The problem with most analyses of the way in which science is ‘spun’ is that they focus only on the more obvious attempts by industry to counter the claims of envi- ronmentalists, and ignore totally the extent to which this is also rife on the other side of politics.
Grant-giving organizations such as the Pew Charitable Trusts, W. Alton Jones Foundation and Surdna Foundation have ensured that environment groups in the USA are largely freed from the need to spend effort mobiliz- ing resources. They make donations to environment groups, for scientific research into issues they wish to highlight, and also support organizations able to create and expand political support for change. One notable example of this was the campaign supported by the W. Alton Jones Foundation (now the Blue Moon Fund) to regulate endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the 1990s.
Alton Jones funded research at Tulane University that suggested that minute traces of EDCs acting synergistically could have a greatly amplified effect. This coincided with a book, ominously titled Our Stolen Future, which was co-authored by the director of Alton Jones (John Myers), a WWF chemist (Theo Colborn) and a journalist (Diane Dumanoski) and a widespread campaign for action. (Ironically, the early modern environ- mental movement had focused on overpopulation; now the threat was humanity’s inability to reproduce!) The US Congress responded with legis- lation in the form of the Food Quality Protection Act 1996 – only for the Tulane paper subsequently to be formally withdrawn when it could not be replicated. The timing of the book, the paper and the campaign were seem- ingly no coincidence. Alton Jones also funded numerous environment groups to support the campaign for action.
Troy Seidle (2004) provides a scathing analysis ofOur Stolen Future, the campaign over EDCs, and the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act.
(Seidle, of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, was concerned about the impact of the demands of the legislation on the incidence of animal testing.) Our Stolen Futurewas hailed as the next Silent Spring, but it received critical reviews in both Scientific American(Kamrin, 1996) and Science(Hirshfeld, 1996). The Tulane study (Arnold et al., 1996) appeared just as the media hype over Our Stolen Futurebegan to fade, and it was endorsed strongly by EPA Administrator Carol Browner and EPA Assistant Administrator of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Lynn Goldman (who, ironically, was later to sign the UCS petition against the sound science initiative). Yet the paper quickly came under critical
140 Science and public policy
scrutiny because it could not be replicated (Kaiser, 1997; Ashby et al., 1997), and it was formally withdrawn in 1997. The US Office for Research Integrity found subsequently in 2001 that there was no original data or other corroborating evidence to support the research results and conclu- sions reported in Science, and the authors were banned from receiving federal grants for five years.
The highly emotive politics that accompanies science on toxics has res- ulted in a substantial distortion of policy priorities. For example, Tengs et al.(1995) concluded from a study of 500 life-saving interventions that the median cost for a life-year saved was $42 000, and the median medical inter- vention cost $19 000 per life-year. But the median cost of toxics regulation was $2.8 million per life-year. It now seems that the regulation of chemicals for carcinogenicity has been based upon poor science. There is widespread evidence of hormesis – the theory that small doses are beneficialin that they induce fewer tumours, so that the dose–response curve is J-shaped (Calabrese and Baldwin, 2003a, 2003b). Whereas most modelling for chem- icals regulation uses a threshold dose–response model, carcinogenic regu- lation has proceeded on the basis of a linear dose–response curve and has thus resulted in an expensive regulatory quest for levels of purity that are not only unattainable, but are probably harmful if successful.
The opportunity cost of such politicized science is that resources are mis- allocated and lives that could have been saved are lost, and such examples are not confined to biodiversity, climate change and toxics regulation. In April 2002, for example,Natureformally withdrew a paper by David Quist and David Chapela that it had published in November 2001. In it, they reported that modified genes in maize in the USA had crossed into Mexico and contaminated wild maize plants. Dr Quist had stated that this research showed that the benefits of GM crops did not outweigh the ‘enormous’
risks to food security (Telegraph, 10 August 2002). (The risk assessment was not, of course, Dr Quist’s to make – nor was it within his field of expertise.) Publication of the paper had sparked protests over the methodology by 100 leading biological scientists (evidence, said activists, of a biotech industry vendetta), and it was later disowned by the Mexican government after its scientists were unable to replicate the results. It was something of a surprise, therefore, that Jorge Soberon, head of the Mexican delegation to the con- ference of the parties to the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD COP) told a meeting in The Hague in April 2002 that further tests by scientists from the National Autonomous University of Mexico and the Environment Ministry had confirmed the finding.
This no doubt played well at the CBD COP, as Mr Soberon stated: ‘This is the world’s worst case of contamination by genetically modified material because it happened in the place of origin of a major crop. It is confirmed.
There is no doubt about it.’ Unfortunately for Mr Soberon, doubts per- sisted – at least until a further study reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science could find no evidence of contamination (Ortiz-Garcia et al., 2005). Perhaps not surprisingly, this research was reported by Planet Arkunder the headline ‘Gene-Modified Corn Gone from Mexico, Study Finds’ (Planet Ark, 9 August 2005), suggesting that the contamination had been there, but had now mysteriously vanished, rather than the more obvious conclusion that the flawed Quist and Chapela paper had been wrong in finding that it was present.
Daniel Sarewitz (2004, p. 386) takes a constructivist position on science, arguing that advocates on either side of an issue are likely to exploit any uncertainty or competing scientific results to support their position, arguing (after Jasanoff, 1987, 1990, 1996 and Wynne, 1989) that science is inevitably embedded in a political context, and the boundaries between science and policy or politics ‘are constantly being renegotiated as part of the political process’ (see also Jasanoffand Wynne, 1998). Be that as it may, we need not accept his conclusion that all science is equally indeterminate, and equally subject to construction. Indeed, the very example Sarewitz provides has (since his piece was published) been settled because the contentious results could not be replicated – a somewhat ‘realist’ test of their veracity. (Critical realism, which holds that social construction is largely confined to the derivation of our knowledge, does not consign us to relativism.)
Sarewitz (2004, pp. 390–3) used the example of the research of Chapela and Quist that suggested wild Mexican maize had been contaminated by GM pollen to suggest that the controversy reflected the embedding of different values in genetic science. The practitioners of genetic science pointed to methodological flaws in Chapela and Quist. Environmental scientists were prepared to acknowledge the methodological flaws, but rec- ognized ‘that parts of the research had important implications for ecosys- tem behaviour, and as well that the research reflected such scientific virtues as replicability of results and the clever identification of a control case.’
Ultimately, of course, the fact that the research could not be replicated settled the issue rather definitively, but the case is a salutary one, because Chapela and Quist’s findings (unsurprisingly) reinforced the open hostility to GM technology, and the environmental scientists – in reading ‘implica- tions’ from the ‘good parts’ of a flawed study – demonstrated a common problem for policy based on such science: the science itself frequently embodies the precautionary principle, so that double counting of precau- tion results when it is invoked in the policy process.
If we accept that science is largely self-correcting (as it was with these EDC and GM contamination cases), there is not a great cause for concern,
142 Science and public policy
but the provision of substantial resources to push the politics can lead (as in the EDC case) to premature regulatory action aided by the invocation of the precautionary principle. It is for this reason that the funding behind those scientists pushing noble causes is of concern, and I now turn to examine this phenomenon in some detail.