System of Scientific Peer Review in Effect Since Galileo Scuttled By the Bush Administration - Consequences Not Commonly Understood - OBM Seeking to Dispel Fears of Bias
President George Bush's Office of Budget and Management (OMB) is requiring peer review of all significant scientific regulatory information conveyed to the public. They are taking over a previously voluntary method that has served science and humanity well since Galileo' time (1615). The move gives the White House excessive span of control without adequate checks and balances. It opens the door to abuse and misuse of the peer review process - to advance political or normative agendas by the executive branch, scientific groups themselves, or other interest groups.
HAVERFORD, PA (PRWEB) March 2, 2004
President George Bush's Office of Budget and Management (OMB) is requiring peer review of all significant scientific regulatory information conveyed to the public. They are taking over a previously voluntary method that has served science and humanity well since Galileo' time (1615). The move gives the White House excessive span of control without adequate checks and balances. It opens the door to abuse and misuse of the peer review process - to advance political or normative agendas by the executive branch, scientific groups themselves, or other interest groups.
The public does not seem to be aware of the move or fully understand the serious consequences that will ultimately benefit insiders. Placing responsibility for controlling scientific matters affecting the public should NOT be vested in a budgetary bureaucracy of the White House. The financial comptroller should not be the final judge of scientific affairs. Checks should exist to prevent White House excessive interference in the conduct of basic and applied research in all the sciences - checks are especially needed to prevent government from meddling in the voluntary system of peer review that has served humanity so well.
These are the highlights of an editorial published in the Spring edition of Scipolicy-The Journal of Science and Health Policy. (http://scipolicy. net (http://scipolicy. net))
"Peer review is an institution for the expression of scientific freedom that, over the centuries, has enabled the responsible dissemination of some of the most marvelous discoveries from which all of humanity has benefited. But the plan proposes regulations that limit participation in peer review in ways that will have a chilling effect on research. Some see the proposed regulations as a Trojan horse designed either to block or annul regulatory actions that corporations and businesses resent for purely pecuniary reasons or to inject non-scientific private interests to oversee and influence the peer review process. The last thing that scientific progress and environmental protection needs is for hidden, especially pecuniary, interests to drive regulatory reform." (Scipolicy editorial)
Scipolicy Board Member Michael Crow, Ph. D. - who is President of Arizona State University, a research intensive instution - cautions "As our world becomes more technically complex the need to keep science reviewed without intervention is more important than ever. It is critical that peer review of science in all technical matters be maintained in its most rigorous form."
"Most people affected by the plan are not aware of the far-reaching effects. Some erroneously think the plan is for limited government regulations. Actually, the plan addresses ALL important scientific information for the public and will include medical research, hospital procedures involving research, new drugs, new technologies, environmental affairs, and agriculture to name just a few of the many areas affected by the plan. Its potential for changing the ways of science and technology are enormous and can revert the progress of humanity and the standard of living that resulted from free science and research," says Stephen Miles Sacks, Ph. D., Scipolicy Editor and Publisher.
The person in the White House who is responsible for designing and administering the peer review plan is John D. Graham, Ph. D. He is the director of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). In a response to the editorial, he points out that the numerous federal agencies that are highly involved with science are already carring out rigorous peer review.
Graham states "OMB has no intention of being the final judge on scientific matters. On the contrary, we are enthusiastic about peer re-view precisely because it is designed to ensure that “judgments” on scientific affairs are provided by those who have the expertise (knowledge, experience, and skills) necessary to perform the requested review, represent the diversity of scientific perspectives relevant to a report's subject, and are independent of the project being reviewed."
According to Scipolicy Editorial Board Member and noted expert in science policy, Henry Etzkowitz, Ph. D., "I reject the basic premise [of this...] on the ground that it is an attempt to throw a "monkey wrench" into the machinery of government regulation. I am willing to go with the internal expertise of government agencies and the external advise they solicit, without adding a formal level of "peer review" which I consider a disingenuous use of the term in this context," (Etzkowitz is Director of the Science Policy Institute and Professor of Science Policy at the State University of New York, author of MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science, the "Triple Helix" of academic-industry-government relations, and books on the experience of women and minorities in science).
Almost 200 individuals and organizations sent responses to OMB regarding the peer review plan. Many express concern that peer review oversight should remain insulated from encroaching politics, ideology, and commercial pressures. Further, they voice objection to the provision of the plan that excludes recipients of research grants from participating in peer review. Since the cadre of experts in many areas of research ARE present or past recipients of federal grants, the most competent people will be disenfranchised from this version of peer review. (Scipolicy editorial).
Graham acknowledges the plan has raised wide-spread concern among scientists and says "In light of public and agency comments, however, we are taking a hard look at the criteria presented in the proposed bulletin. We hope that the final bulletin will reduce your (Scipolicy editorial) concerns that the peer review guidance may result in “systematically biased reviews.”
Statement by James C. Saunders, Ph. D., Editorial Board Member and Professor of Research Otorhinolaryngology, Physiology, and Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania (saunderj@mail. med. upenn. edu):
"The efforts by the Bush Administration to reform regulatory process in the federal government has merit if designed to improve the efficiency by which rational decisions are reached that pertain to the well being of the nation. Above all else these decisions require reasoned, thoughtful, and wide-ranging debate of all pertinent information. The plan put forward by the Administration, however, is flawed since it lacks appropriate measures to assure the objectivity of this debate. The Editorial appearing in the Journal of Science and Health Policy carefully lays-out the flaws and dangers in the proposed plan, and the potential for conflict of interest by the agency (OMB)responsible for its administration. The thoughts in this Editorial represent a consensus of the Journal's Editorial Board, and it is notable that a broad constituency of the Nation's scientific community has expressed these same concerns."
The Scipolicy editorial and the White House-OMB response are freely available to the public for review at http://scipolicy. net (http://scipolicy. net).
###
SCIPOLICY-The Journal of Science and Health Policy(tm) of Haverford, Pennsylvania on Philadelphia's Main Line, is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that is published electronically. Since its introduction in 2000, the Journal's website received over 52,000 unique visitors and over 275,000 hits. The Editorial Board is composed of 13 eminent scholars and researchers who are experts in science and health policy as well as research affairs, including peer review practices. http://scipolicy. net (http://scipolicy. net)
Of 189 responses received by OMB, the following scientific groups and associations filed positions about the plan (all the rest are individuals or non-scientific groups or organizations):
SCIENTIFIC GROUPS AGAINST IT or RECOMMENDING SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO IT:
Institute for Regulatory Science (160k)
Association of American Medical Colleges and Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (147k)
American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (57k)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (29k)
Federation of American Scientists (46k)
American Public Health Association (64k)
National Academy of Sciences (34k)
Ecological Society of America (46k)
Association of American Universities and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (43k)
International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (146k)
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (869k)
The Ornithological Council (46k)
SCIENTIFIC GROUPS FOR THE PLAN:
Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America (574k)
American Chemistry Council (240k)
SCIPOLICY peer review editorial news release 03-01-04
