<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:34337.wais]
SHAPING THE MESSAGE, DISTORTING
THE SCIENCE: MEDIA STRATEGIES TO
INFLUENCE SCIENCE POLICY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND
OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 28, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-17
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-337 PS WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington KEN CALVERT, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
NICK LAMPSON, Texas FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
JERRY MCNERNEY, California W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JO BONNER, Alabama
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon TOM FEENEY, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JIM MATHESON, Utah DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight
HON. BRAD MILLER, North Carolina, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas Wisconsin
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
DAN PEARSON Subcommittee Staff Director
EDITH HOLLEMAN Subcommittee Counsel
JAMES PAUL Democratic Professional Staff Member
DOUG PASTERNAK Democratic Professional Staff Member
KEN JACOBSON Democratic Professional Staff Member
TOM HAMMOND Republican Professional Staff Member
STACEY STEEP Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
March 28, 2007
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brad Miller, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 3
Written Statement............................................ 3
Statement by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Member,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 4
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 5
Prepared Statement by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 6
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 8
Witnesses:
Mr. Sheldon Rampton, Research Director, Center for Media and
Democracy, Madison, Wisconsin; Co-author, Trust Us We're
Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your
Future
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 11
Biography.................................................... 21
Dr. James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological
Oceanography, Harvard University; Board Member, Union of
Concerned Scientists
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Mr. Tarek F. Maassarani, Staff Attorney, Government
Accountability Project
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 41
Mr. Jeff Kueter, President, George C. Marshall Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 47
Written Statement............................................ 49
Biography.................................................... 57
Discussion
Climate Change: Industry Reaction.............................. 57
Climate Change: Scientific Reaction............................ 57
Climate Change: Government Reaction............................ 58
Funding for Climate Change Skeptics............................ 59
Scientists as Policy Advisors.................................. 61
Recommendations................................................ 63
Administration Position on Climate Change...................... 65
Climate Change Skeptics........................................ 67
Freedom of Information Act Requests............................ 70
Science Publishing Concerns.................................... 70
Political Pressure on Scientists............................... 73
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Sheldon Rampton, Research Director, Center for Media and
Democracy, Madison, Wisconsin; Co-author, Trust Us We're
Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your
Future......................................................... 82
Dr. James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological
Oceanography, Harvard University; Board Member, Union of
Concerned Scientists........................................... 85
Mr. Tarek F. Maassarani, Staff Attorney, Government
Accountability Project......................................... 88
Mr. Jeff Kueter, President, George C. Marshall Institute......... 89
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Redacting the Science of Climate Change: An Investigative and
Synthesis Report, by Tarek Maassarani, Government
Accountability Project, March 2007............................. 92
Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's
Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science, Union of
Concerned Scientists, January 2007............................. 231
Atmosphere of Pressure: Political Interference in Federal Climate
Science, Union of Concerned Scientists, Government
Accountability Project, February 2007.......................... 299
SHAPING THE MESSAGE, DISTORTING THE SCIENCE: MEDIA STRATEGIES TO
INFLUENCE SCIENCE POLICY
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brad
Miller [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Chairman Miller. The Committee will come to order on
today's hearing, Shaping the Message, Distorting the Science:
Media Strategies to Influence Science Policy.
Ronald Reagan said that facts were stubborn things. Mr.
Rohrabacher may have written those words. The topic of today's
hearing is a consorted effort by opponents of measures to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to bully scientific facts into
submission, and, under intense pressure, the facts about global
warming caved in and proved much more elastic, much less
stubborn than Ronald Reagan had us believe. At least that is
how it has appeared to the public. According to the New York
Times, opponents of the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 began recruiting
scientists who believed or at least would say that evidence of
global warming was insubstantial and evidence that greenhouse
gas emissions were a cause of global warming was especially
dubious.
Reviewed studies by climate scientists were almost
unanimous in finding that global warming was real and that
greenhouse gas emissions were a major part of it. But in the
popular press the question was treated as controversial among
scientists. Television news programs usually featured one
scientist who explained the overwhelming consensus view of
climate scientists and one made-for-television expert who took
the opposite view. To the average citizen it looked like a real
debate between scientific peers. In fact, the skeptics were in
the indirect employ of the oil and gas industry and that
obviously conflict of interest was rarely disclosed. Few paid
skeptics did any original research, many were not even trained
in the fields in which they claimed expertise, and most simply
specialized in attacking as ``junk science'' the careful,
legitimate research that was published in journals and tested
by rigorous peer review.
According to the testimony we will hear today, since 2001,
the Bush Administration has been part of the effort to
manipulate the public debate about climate change. The Bush
Administration, at the urging also of the oil and gas industry,
muzzled Government scientists whose research supported the
consensus view of climate scientists, adding to the public
impression that there was substantial doubt among scientists.
Press officers whose experience was in politics, not science,
editor-suppressed press releases about government research,
acted as monitors for government scientists during press
interviews, and required that politically-reliable scientists
speak to the press for each agency.
The approved agency spokesman sometimes treated as
outlandish as urban legend, the considered view of most
scientists at the agency. There is much at stake here. We need
to rely on sound scientific research to inform our decision.
Scientific research should have no party affiliation.
At this time Mr. Sensenbrenner, the Ranking Member, is
unable to be here today, but the Chair recognizes Mr.
Rohrabacher, the distinguished Member from California, for his
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brad Miller
Ronald Reagan said that facts were stubborn things. The topic of
today's hearing is a concerted effort by opponents of measures to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions to bully scientific facts into
submission. And under intense pressure, the facts about global warming
caved in, and proved much more elastic than Ronald Reagan had us
believe.
At least, that is how it has appeared to the public.
According to the New York Times, opponents of the Kyoto Protocol in
1998 began recruiting scientists who believed--or at least would say--
that evidence of global warming was insubstantial, and evidence that
greenhouse gas emissions were a cause of global warming was especially
dubious. Peer-reviewed studies by climate scientists were almost
unanimous in finding that global warming was real and that greenhouse
gas emissions were a major cause of it.
But in the popular press, the question was treated as controversial
among scientists.
Television news programs usually featured one scientist who
explained the overwhelming consensus view of legitimate climate
scientists, and one made-for-television ``expert'' who took the
opposite view. To the average citizen, it looked like a real debate
between scientific peers.
In fact, the skeptics were in the indirect employ of the oil and
gas industry, and that obvious conflict of interest was rarely
disclosed. Few paid skeptics did any original research, many were not
even trained in the fields in which they claimed expertise, and most
simply specialized in attacking as ``junk science'' the careful,
legitimate research that was published in learned journals and tested
by rigorous peer review.
According to the testimony we will hear today, since 2001 the Bush
Administration has been part of the effort to manipulate public debate
about climate change.
The Bush Administration, at the urging of the oil and gas industry,
muzzled government scientists whose research supported the consensus
view of climate scientists, adding to the public impression that there
was substantial doubt among scientists. Press officers whose experience
was in politics, not science, edited or suppressed press releases about
government research, acted as ``minders'' for government scientists
during press interviews, and required that politically-reliable
scientists speak to the press for each agency. The approved agency
spokesmen sometimes treated as outlandish, as urban legend, the
considered view of most scientists at the agency.
There is much at stake here. We need to rely on sound,
dispassionate scientific research to inform our decisions. Scientific
research should have no party affiliation.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
note if there was ever a case of the pot calling the kettle
black, this hearing is that example. For Pete's sakes, we have
had tens of billions of dollars over the last 20 years spent on
climate change research, and in the last 10 years or so, it may
have been 15 years, there is ample evidence, and I will be
submitting these quotes for the record, of prominent scientists
who have been complaining that they have not been able to get
grants if they voice skepticism about the global warming
``consensus.''
Mr. Chairman, the sound dispassionate science does not mean
that you can dismiss people who disagree with a specific idea
that is trying to be expressed by claiming that you represent a
consensus. What I see happening more and more in this debate
over global warming is that those people who are advocating
this position end up not answering the charges of very
respectable scientists, and again, one need only look at my
website to find the names of hundreds of these prominent
scientists from major universities who are not part of this so-
called consensus but now instead of answering the specific
scientific challenges to these theories, what we find is a
dismissal in the public debate of even acknowledging that there
is a point being made and the point then being dismissed.
Now, I will have to tell you, that is about as arrogant and
about as anti-scientific an attitude, and it is prevailing in
this debate. I mean, I don't want to hear about consensus
anymore, proving that someone is right. The fact is that there
has been consensuses in science in the past that have been dead
wrong, and one or two individuals without any government grants
because all the grants were going to the consensus, have made
it, managed to change public opinion and scientific opinion on
various issues. History is replete with examples of this.
Instead, today we have people who are claiming to the mantle of
sound, dispassionate science who are dismissing the arguments
of the other side.
One of the ways they can do this is instead of answering
the arguments, just challenge who is paying for your research.
Well, first of all, not all research is being paid to those
people who disagree with illegal, excuse me, say illegal
immigration, with global warming. The fact is not all people
who are paid for that research are necessarily wrong. I mean,
the fact is that there are special interests on both sides of
this issue. We have organizations, today we will hear
complaints that the oil companies are providing a certain
degree of support for research, trying to find answers to some
of the arguments that are being presented. Let me note, that
doesn't make their findings any less wrong. Their findings
should be examined just as those arguments that are being
presented on the pro-global warming side, which are being
funded by, you know, perhaps at a degree 100 times more
spending on that side by special interest groups, let me add,
than on the side of those people who are trying to disprove
that theory.
So today I am anxious to get down to the nitty gritty with
the witnesses. I want to see why the fact that we can claim a
consensus, which I have been hearing about for 10 years, even
as we hear more and more scientists saying, I was cut out of
getting any kind of research contracts unless I agreed with
global warming. I will put examples of this, five examples of
this into the Congressional record and into the record of this
hearing. These are people who, for example, who are the heads
of major universities' science departments and members of--
anyway, we will go through that. There is a member right here
of the Director of Research for the Dutch, Royal Dutch
Meteorological Institute who is now a Professor of aeronautical
engineering at Penn State University, talks about as others
from the University of Colorado, how people are, in the
scientific community, are being basically influenced by the
lure of getting Government grants to do research that will come
up with a conclusion in favor of global warming, and that is
skewing the research going on in this country.
So in other words, this hearing is, if it is looking for
scientists who are being pressured to do the wrong thing,
perhaps we are looking in the wrong direction, because the
pressure may be coming from exactly the opposite side, the side
that is claiming to represent a consensus in order to suppress
debate on this issue.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. We also have
with us the Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee,
Mr. Gordon of Tennessee. Mr. Gordon, I will recognize you for
an opening statement.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Chairman Miller, and my friend,
Ranking Member Rohrabacher. I am not sure who is the kettle and
who is the pot here today, but I do know that gravity and
climate change--global warming--are two things that are pretty
well established.
Just the other day the IPCC, which was composed of 113
nations, unanimously, including the United States and President
Bush, unanimously endorsed that within 100 percent certainty
there is global warming. And so it really is tough to make good
policy from bad information, and it seems that in this town
there is a new industry developing, and that industry is to try
to create doubt where there is little doubt, not for scientific
integrity, but to provide a hook for special interests, then to
try to create that doubt. And I think it is a legitimate area
for discussion. I think this is the first of a good series of
hearings, and I think this is an area where we need to shine
some sunlight. And I compliment the Chairman for doing this,
and I am sure that those folks who don't agree, they have got a
witness here today and will have ample opportunity to discuss
that.
So, again, thank you for calling this hearing.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. I think the only
other Member we have here is Mr. Baird, and Mr. Baird, I doubt
you have an opening statement, but if you do, you certainly--
no. I am mistaken.
Mr. Baird. I will make a very, very brief one. I thank the
Chair for hosting this. I would just say that I have concerns
about the possible abuse or misuse of science on all sides. I
have seen it in both directions. I have seen members of
industry hire hired guns to present a certain askew, and I have
seen members of environmental groups do the reverse.
As a scientist myself I place a high priority on scientific
integrity, regardless of the source. And so I applaud the
Chairman for hosting today's hearing, and I hope we will look
at abuses of science on all sides, because to whatever extent
the data are being spun or distorted, it does a disservice to
this public. And so I applaud the Chair for hosting this, and I
look forward to the testimony.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Baird.
[The prepared statement of Representative Sensenbrenner
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
The title of today's hearing has an odious ring--``Shaping the
Message, Distorting the Science.'' These accusations, leveled against
ExxonMobil and against the Administration, have a grave tone. If it
were not for the ubiquitous press headlines declaring the world's
imminent demise from global warming, the title of today's hearing could
have lead us to falsely conclude that the climate change debate was
being stifled. I am now the Ranking Member on a Committee devoted
almost entirely to climate change, and a recent poll by Time Magazine
found that 88 percent of Americans believe that the Earth is getting
warmer. All of this makes me wonder why we are here and what
relationship this hearing has with reality.
The alleged distortion of science is purportedly happening in two
different ways. First, major industries, particularly ExxonMobil, are
allegedly deceiving the masses by intentionally funding and trumpeting
false science. Second, the Administration is allegedly curbing federal
scientists from presenting scientific findings that are at odds with
its policies. Before we start screaming ``McCarthyism,'' we should
examine how little merit these accusations actually have.
The first alleged distortion of science was purportedly perpetrated
by ExxonMobil. The report ``Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air'' by the Union
of Concerned Scientists (UCS) accuses ExxonMobil of using ``big
tobacco's tactics to manufacture uncertainty on climate science.'' The
crux of UCS' argument relies on $16 million that ExxonMobil spent over
a period of seven years to promote science that UCS disagrees with. UCS
concedes that what amounts to a little over $2 million per year is a
modest sum of money for a company that records profits of $100 million
per day, but nonetheless, argues that ExxonMobil has been ``remarkably
effective at manufacturing uncertainty about the scientific consensus
on global warming.''
ExxonMobil's efforts seem especially remarkable in light of the
fact that ExxonMobil spends significantly more money to fund projects
that even UCS concedes are credible. To name a few, ExxonMobil has
supported projects with Carnegie Mellon, the Hadley Centre for Climate
Prediction, Columbia University, the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, the University of Texas, and Yale. In just one instance,
ExxonMobil pledged $100 million over ten years for Stanford
University's Global Climate and Energy Project, which seeks to develop
``new energy technologies that will permit the development of global
energy systems with significantly lower global warming emissions.'' Is
the work at Stanford University similarly suspect? How can we fairly
accuse ExxonMobil of spreading a campaign of misinformation when it is
funding a full spectrum of scientific research?
The second method of scientific distortion purportedly comes from
the Administration. Despite its accusatory title, the Government
Accountability Project's report, ``Redacting the Science of Climate
Change,'' concedes that it found ``no incidents of direct interference
in climate change research.'' Regarding climate change scientists, the
report concludes:
[T]he investigation by the Government Accountability Project
has uncovered no concrete evidence that political actors are
directly and willfully interfering with this fundamental aspect
of scientific work.
Thus, despite its lengthy report and its year long investigation,
GAP did not find any evidence that the Administration had interfered
with climate change research.
Just as the integrity of federal research is not attacked, there
are no serious allegations that the Administration is concealing the
results of this research from the public. When asked about scientific
integrity at his agency, Robert Atlas, Director of the Atlantic
Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (AOML) at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, responded:
I have not observed any political interference with our
ability at AOML to communicate scientific information. All of
our scientists are free to publish their results in the
refereed scientific literature and to present high quality
research at national or international conferences. Only the
quality of the research is scrutinized and scientists are
encouraged to present their conclusions that are supported by
their research.
This sentiment is echoed by the scientific community. Eighty-eight
percent of federal climate scientists surveyed believe that Federal
Government climate research is of generally excellent quality and 70
percent believe that federal climate research is independent and
impartial.
So, to recap, there is no evidence that the policy-makers seek to
control or influence scientific research, federal scientists are freely
encouraged to publish the results of their research, and the relevant
scientists overwhelmingly believe that their research is independent
and impartial. And yet, the title of today's hearing is ``Shaping the
message, Distorting the Science?'' Wouldn't ``Partisanship for the Sake
of Partisanship'' have been more accurate? If the science is
independent and the results are freely published, the only thing
policy-makers are controlling is policy. Surely, the Federal Government
has a right to oversee federal scientists and speak with a consistent
message.
Furthermore, both NASA and NOAA have taken steps to address
potential problems. NASA introduced a media policy that was widely
accepted by the scientific community, and NOAA plans to adopt a similar
policy in the coming weeks. Additionally, the Inspectors General at the
Department of Commerce and NASA, as well as the Government
Accountability Office, all have ongoing investigations related to this
topic. The Full Committee plans to hold a hearing on this topic after
these reports are released. We will have an opportunity to examine any
potential problems, in detail, when these reports are released.
I believe very strongly in Congress' responsibility to hold the
executive branch accountable. And I believe that the Federal Government
should pursue policies that are both environmentally and economically
sound. I look forward to an opportunity to leave these partisan
investigations behind and focus on these shared goals.
[The prepared statement of Representative Costello
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good afternoon. Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing to
listen to testimony from various witnesses on the extent to which
political interference did or did not alter federal climate change
research and the dissemination of scientific information.
This is the first hearing by the Subcommittee addressing the issue
of science and the media. For the past few years, there have been
repeated reports about efforts within the science agencies to control
which federal scientists get access to conferences or the press.
Further, there have been additional reports of how big oil have used
some of their profits to create the impression of doubt in the science
surrounding climate change. Today's hearing will provide Members the
opportunity to receive ``big picture'' testimony on what has happened
and what we know.
The manipulation of science for public relations or political
advantage is intolerable and inevitably has a corrupting effect on
science itself. I believe greater public transparency regarding the
sponsorship of science and of organizations that claim to speak on
scientific matters is critically important. Further, the public and
policy-makers have a right and to know who is funding research and how
it may be affecting the outcome of the science.
I welcome our panel of witnesses and look forward to their
testimony.
Chairman Miller. I will now introduce our witnesses. First
is Mr. Sheldon Rampton, the Research Director at the Center for
Media and Democracy and co-author of Trust Us, We're Experts:
How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future.
Second is Dr. James McCarthy, the Alexander Agassiz
Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University, and
President-Elect of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science and a member of the Board of the Union of Concerned
Scientists.
Mr. Tarek Maassarani, Staff Attorney with the Government
Accountability Project and author of the report, Redacting the
Science of Climate Change, and finally, Mr. Jeff Kueter,
President of the George C. Marshall Institute.
You have all submitted, I think, written testimony, which
will be made part of the record. Thank you for that. Your oral
testimony will be limited to five minutes. And after the entire
panel has testified the Members of the Committee will have five
minutes each to ask questions.
It is the practice of this subcommittee to take testimony
under oath. Do any of you have any objection to taking an oath,
swearing an oath? If not, you also have the right to be
represented by counsel. Do any of you have counsel here? All
right. If you would all now please stand and raise your right
hand. Thank you.
[Witnesses sworn]
Chairman Miller. Thank you. We will begin with Mr. Rampton.
STATEMENT OF MR. SHELDON RAMPTON, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY, MADISON, WISCONSIN; CO-AUTHOR, TRUST US
WE'RE EXPERTS: HOW INDUSTRY MANIPULATES SCIENCE AND GAMBLES
WITH YOUR FUTURE
Mr. Rampton. Well, thank you very much for holding this
hearing and for inviting me to testify. I am going to speak
about the general practice of science manipulation for public
relations purposes. I understand some of the other speakers
will focus more specifically on the issue of global warming.
The power that science wields in modern society is a
reflection of the fact that it has shown the ability to create
knowledge that is as reliable as any product of human endeavor.
The very prestige of science, however, also makes it an
attractive tool for manipulating public opinion. You can find
science being used for that purpose, for example, in the
advertisements and television commercials which announce that
laboratory tests prove toothpaste X whitens teeth whiter or
that nine out of 10 doctors agree that brand X is better than
brand Y.
Advertising, however, is only the most visible aspect of a
variety of modern persuasive techniques that include public
relations and lobbying, all branches of what should more
properly be termed a modern propaganda industry. Some of these
techniques are actually more subtle and hidden than
advertising. The use of endorsements by scientific experts to
sell a product or policy is often done without public
disclosure that the experts have been recruited or even paid to
do so. This technique has become so common, in fact, that the
public relations industry actually has a standard term for it.
They call it the third-party technique.
The idea behind his phrase is that the PR firm's client,
typically some company, industry, or other special interest, is
the first party, interested in delivering some persuasive
message to a second party, the audience. However, experience
shows that if the message is seen as coming directly from the
client, the audience will greet the message with skepticism
because it is so obviously self-serving. To give the message
more credibility, therefore, lobbyists, public relations firms
finds that it helps if they can use a third party who seems
independent to deliver that message for them. One public
relations executive has explained the third-party technique as
``put your words in someone else's mouth.'' It turns out that
the prestige and power of science makes scientists, academics,
doctors, and other professional experts very useful third-party
spokespersons, if they can be recruited for this purpose.
Sometimes this technique is used to exaggerate the benefits
of a product. Other times it is used to create doubt about a
product's hazards. In public policy debates it can be used to
cast doubt about the seriousness of problems requiring
government action. Conversely, sometimes it is used to
exaggerate dangers in order to build pressure for legislation
or other government action that the client desires.
Scientific journals are now routinely used to serve
companies' marketing and public policy objectives, sometimes
with serious negative consequences for the public. The tobacco
industry, of course, is well known for its public relations
manipulations of science. Many instances of this have now
become public knowledge, thanks to whistleblowers and lawsuits
that resulted in the public release of millions of pages of
previously secret industry documents. The first clear
scientific evidence showing the link between smoking and lung
cancer emerged in the early 1950s, but public recognition of
the extent of his hazard was delayed for decades due to
aggressive public relations by the tobacco industry. And even
today the industry is involved in rearguard efforts to downplay
the dangers of hazards such as secondhand smoke.
A few years ago, for example, documents came to light
regarding an industry-funded campaign in the 1990s to plant
sympathetic letters and articles in influential medical
journals. Tobacco companies had secretly paid 13 scientists a
total of $156,000 simple to sign their names to these letters
and articles. One biostatistician received $10,000 for writing
a single, 8-page letter that was published in the Journal of
the American Medical Association. Another received $20,000 for
writing four letters and an opinion piece to the Lancet, the
Journal of the National Cancer Institute and the Wall Street
Journal. These scientists did not even have to write the
letters themselves. The tobacco industry's law firms did the
actual drafting and editing. So in essence they were being paid
for their autographs.
The tobacco industry is hardly alone, however, in
attempting to manipulate the scientific publishing process. As
the Wall Street Journal reported in December, 2005, ``Many of
the articles that appears in scientific journals under the
byline of prominent academics are actually written by
ghostwriters in the pay of drug companies.'' Used by doctors to
guide their care of patients, these ``seemingly objective
articles are often part of a marketing campaign.'' To promote
the diet-drug combo fen-phen, for example, Wyeth-Ayerst
Laboratories commissioned ghostwriters to write 10 articles for
publication in peer-reviewed medical journals. After fen-phen
was linked to heart valve damage and lung disease, the company
was forced to pull the drugs from the market. Subsequent
lawsuits filed by injured fen-phen users unearthed internal
company documents showing that the drug company had also edited
the draft articles to play down and occasionally delete
descriptions of side effects. The final articles were published
under the names of prominent researchers, one of whom claimed
later in courtroom testimony that he had no idea that a
pharmaceutical company had commissioned the article on which
his own name appeared. ``It is really deceptive,'' he told the
court. ``It sort of makes you uneasy.''
So how does a doctor's name actually appear as the primary
author of a study without him knowing who sponsored it? The
process in this case involved an intermediary hired by the drug
company names Excerpta Medica. Excerpta received $20,000 for
each article which was written by its ghostwriters. It then
lined up well-known university researchers and paid them
honoraria of $1,000 to $1,500 to edit their drafts and lend
their names to the final work. One of these brand-name
researchers even sent a letter back praising Excerpta's
ghostwriting skills. He joked, ``Perhaps I can get you to write
all my papers for me! My only general comment is that this
piece may make fen-phen sound better than it really is.''
A similar pattern recurs on issue after issue; air quality,
water quality, product safety, and nutrition. One internal
memorandum from a public relations firm to a client boasted
about the range of issues which they managed for ``the
following industries impacted by science and environmental
policy decisions.''
Chairman Miller. Mr. Rampton, if you could summarize in
just a sentence or two, please.
Mr. Rampton. Just a sentence or two? All right. The
manipulation of science for public relations or political
advantage inevitably has a corrupting effect on science itself.
It undermines the integrity and objectivity of scientific
research. What is needed, therefore, is greater public
transparency regarding the sponsorship of science and of
organizations that claim to speak on scientific matters.
[Statement of Mr. Rampton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sheldon Rampton
The power that science wields in modern society is a reflection of
its ability to create knowledge that is as reliable as any product of
human endeavor. The very prestige of science, however, also makes it an
attractive tool for manipulating public opinion. You can find science
being used for that purpose, for example, in the advertisements and
television commercials which announce that ``laboratory tests prove
toothpaste X whitens teeth whiter,'' or ``nine out of ten doctors
agree'' that brand X is better than brand Y. Advertising, however, is
only the most visible aspect of a variety of modern persuasive
techniques that include public relations and lobbying--all branches of
what should more properly be termed a modern propaganda industry. Some
of these techniques are actually more subtle and hidden than
advertising. The use of endorsements by scientific experts to sell a
product or policy is often done without public disclosure that the
experts have been recruited or paid to do so. This technique has become
so common that the public relations industry has a standard term for
it. They call it the ``third party technique.''
The idea behind this phrase is that the PR firm's client--typically
some company, industry or other special interest--is the ``first
party'' interested in delivering some persuasive message to a ``second
party,'' its audience. However, experience shows that if the message is
seen as coming directly from the client, the audience will treat the
message with skepticism because it is so obviously self-serving. To
give the message more credibility, therefore, lobbyists and PR firms
find that it helps if they can use a third party who seems independent
to deliver it for them. One public relations executive has explained
the third party technique as, ``Put your words in someone else's
mouth.'' It turns out that the prestige and power of science makes
scientists, academics, doctors and other professional experts very
useful third-party spokespersons if they can be recruited for this
purpose.
Sometimes this technique is used to exaggerate the benefits of a
product. Other times it is used to create doubt about a product's
hazards. In public policy debates, it can be used to cast doubt about
the seriousness of problems requiring government action. Conversely,
sometimes it is used to exaggerate dangers in order to build pressure
for legislation or other government action that the client desires.
Scientific journals are now routinely used to serve companies'
marketing and public policy objectives, sometimes with serious
consequences. The tobacco industry is well known for its PR
manipulations of science. Many instances of this have now become public
knowledge thanks to whistleblowers and lawsuits that resulted in the
public release of millions of pages of once-secret industry documents.
Clear scientific evidence showing the link between smoking and lung
cancer first emerged in the early 1950s. Public recognition of the
extent of this hazard was delayed for decades due to aggressive public
relations by the tobacco industry, and even today the industry is
involved in rear-guard efforts to downplay the dangers of hazards such
as secondhand smoke. A few years ago, for example, documents came to
light regarding an industry-sponsored campaign in the early 1990s to
plant sympathetic letters and articles in influential medical journals.
Tobacco companies had secretly paid 13 scientists a total of $156,000
simply to write them. One biostatistician received $10,000 for writing
a single, eight-paragraph letter that was published in the Journal of
the American Medical Association. Another received $20,137 for writing
four letters and an opinion piece to the Lancet, the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute and the Wall Street Journal. These scientists
did not even have to write the letters themselves. The tobacco
industry's law firms did the actual drafting and editing.
The tobacco industry is hardly alone, however, in attempting to
manipulate the scientific publishing process. As the Wall Street
Journal reported in December 2005, ``Many of the articles that appear
in scientific journals under the byline of prominent academics are
actually written by ghostwriters in the pay of drug companies.'' Used
by doctors to guide their care of patients, these ``seemingly objective
articles. . .are often part of a marketing campaign.'' To promote the
diet-drug combo fen-phen, for example, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories
commissioned ghostwriters to write ten articles for publication in
peer-reviewed medical journals. After fen-phen was linked to heart
valve damage and lung disease, the company was forced to pull the drugs
from the market. Subsequent lawsuits filed by injured fen-phen users
unearthed internal company documents showing that Wyeth-Ayerst had also
edited the draft articles to play down and occasionally delete
descriptions of side effects. The final articles were published under
the names of prominent researchers, one of whom claimed later in
courtroom testimony that he had no idea that the pharmaceutical company
had commissioned the article on which his own name appeared. ``It's
really deceptive,'' he told the court. ``It sort of makes you uneasy.''
How does a doctor's name appear an article without him knowing who
sponsored it? The process involved an intermediary hired by Wyeth-
Ayerst named Excerpta Medica. Excerpta received $20,000 for each
article written by its ghostwriters. It then lined up well-known
university researchers and paid them honoraria of $1,000 to $1,500 to
edit the drafts and lend their names to the final work. One of the
name-brand researchers even sent a letter back praising Excerpta's
ghostwriting skills. He joked, ``Perhaps I can get you to write all my
papers for me! My only general comment is that this piece may make
[fen-phen] sound better than it really is.''
A similar pattern recurs on issue after issue--air quality, water
quality, product safety, and nutrition. Scientists are seen by industry
not as researchers who objectively study phenomena but as potential
spokespersons to help promote positions favorable to their sponsors.
This strategy has become so common that sometimes industry PR people
use the term ``independent scientist'' without apparently thinking
about what the word ``independent'' actually means. A few years ago,
the New York Times obtained some leaked documents from the American
Petroleum Institute, in which the Institute detailed its plans to spend
$600,000 to develop a team of pro-industry climate scientists who would
dispute the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
They planned to, in their words, ``identify, recruit and train a team
of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach.''
Somehow the authors of this plan never bothered to ask themselves how a
scientist who has been specifically recruited and trained by the
petroleum industry could be honestly described as ``independent.''
A converse strategy aims at suppressing independent scientific
views, discoveries and evidence that are inconvenient to the industry
or its lobbying interests. For example, the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform recently released documents showing
``hundreds of instances'' where a former and current oil industry
lobbyist had edited government reports to downplay the impact of human
activities on global warming. The edits were by Philip A. Cooney, the
former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental
Quality. Cooney himself has no scientific credentials. He worked for
the American Petroleum Institute prior to being appointed to his
position within the Bush administration. He now works for ExxonMobil.
The manipulation of science for public relations or political
advantage inevitably has a corrupting effect on science itself. It
undermines the integrity and objectivity of scientific research. It
creates confusion in the minds of policy-makers and the general public.
What is needed, therefore, is greater public transparency regarding the
sponsorship of science and of organizations that claim to speak on
scientific matters. The public and policy-makers have a right and to
know who is funding research, what strings are attached to that
funding, and how it may be affecting the information we use to make
decisions--especially decisions on policy matters that affect us all.
PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS/VOLUME 117/JULY-AUGUST, 2002
Research Funding, Conflicts of Interest, and
the ``Meta-methodology'' of Public Relations
By Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber
The power that science wields in modern society is a reflection of
its ability to create knowledge that is as reliable as any product of
human endeavor. Its very prestige, however, also makes it an attractive
tool for public relations and marketing purposes. We are all familiar
with the commercials announcing that ``laboratory tests prove'' or
``nine out of ten doctors agree'' that brand X is better than brand Y.
Advertising, however, is only the most visible aspect of modern
industry propaganda . Many similar endorsement strategies have been
developed by the public relations industry, which prides itself on
working invisibly behind the scenes to place self-serving messages for
its clients in the mouths of seemingly independent third party experts.
Within the PR industry, in fact, this strategy has come to be known as
the ``third party technique.'' Merrill Rose, Executive Vice-President
of the Porter/Novelli PR firm, explains the technique succinctly: ``Put
your words in someone else's mouth.'' \1\ Sometimes the technique is
used to exaggerate the benefits of a product. Other times it is used to
create doubt about a product's hazards, or about criticisms that have
been made of a company's business practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Merrill Rose, ``Activism in the 90s: Changing Roles for Public
Relations,'' Public Relations Quarterly, Vol. 36, no. 3 (1991), pp. 28-
32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR firms use a variety of quasi-scientific methodologies
themselves, such as opinion polling, demographics and psychology. At
its core, however, public relations operates on assumptions that are
antithetical to science. The ideological underpinning of the scientific
endeavor is a belief that ``the truth is out there'' and that it can be
grasped through rational human inquiry. ``Spin,'' however, is the art
of arranging appearances, not substance. ``In this era of exploding
media technologies, there is no truth except the truth you create for
yourself,'' says Richard Edelman at Edelman Worldwide, one of the
world's largest PR firms.\2\ As advertising executive Jack Trout
observes, ``Marketing is a battle of perception, not products. Truth
has no bearing on the issue.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Randall Rothenberg, ``The Age of Spin,'' Esquire, December
1996, p. 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern science considers itself scientific because it adheres to
certain methodologies. It uses quantitative methods and measurable
phenomena; its data is empirically derived and verifiable by others
through experiments that can be reproduced; and, finally, its
practitioners are impartial. Whereas ideological thinkers promulgate
dogmas and defend them in the face of evidence to the contrary,
scientists work with hypotheses which they modify when the evidence so
dictates. When public relations recruits scientists to serve as ``third
party experts,'' however, the techniques of PR function as a ``meta-
methodology'' that can have a corrupting influence on research.
Publication Bias
The tobacco industry is well known for its PR manipulations of
science, many of which have become public knowledge thanks to
whistleblowers and lawsuits that have resulted in the public release of
millions of pages of once-secret industry documents. In 1998, for
example, documents came to light regarding an industry-sponsored
campaign in the early 1990s to plant sympathetic letters and articles
in influential medical journals. Tobacco companies had secretly paid 13
scientists a total of $156,000 simply to write a few letters to
influential medical journals. One biostatistician, Nathan Mantel of
American University in Washington, received $10,000 for writing a
single, eight-paragraph letter that was published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association. Cancer researcher Gio Batta Gori received
$20,137 for writing four letters and an opinion piece to the Lancet,
the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and the Wall Street
Journal. The scientists didn't even have to write the letters
themselves. Two tobacco-industry law firms were available to do the
actual drafting and editing. In some cases, scientists were paid not
just to write letters but entire scientific articles. In one case, the
tobacco industry paid $25,000 to a single scientist to write an article
for the publication Risk Analysis. The same fee went to former EPA
official John Todhunter and tobacco consultant W. Gary Flamm for an
article titled ``EPA Process, Risk Assessment-Risk Management Issues''
which they published in the Journal of Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology, where Flamm served as a member of the journal's editorial
board. Not only did they fail to disclose that their article had been
commissioned by the tobacco industry, journal editor C. Jelleff Carr
later admitted he ``never asked that question, `Were you paid to write
that?' I think it would be almost improper for me to do it.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ David Hanners, ``Scientists Were Paid to Write Letters: Tobacco
Industry Sought to Discredit EPA Report,'' St. Louis Pioneer Dispatch,
August 4, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tobacco industry is hardly alone, however, in attempting to
influence the scientific publishing process. A similar example of
industry influence came to light in 1999 regarding the diet-drug combo
fen-phen, developed by Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories. Wyeth-Ayerst had
commissioned ghostwriters to write ten articles promoting fen-phen as a
treatment for obesity. Two of the ten articles were actually published
in peer-reviewed medical journals before studies linked fen-phen to
heart valve damage and an often-fatal lung disease, forcing the company
to pull the drugs from the market in September 1997. In lawsuits filed
by injured fen-phen users, internal company documents were subpoenaed
showing that Wyeth-Ayerst had also edited the draft articles to play
down and occasionally delete descriptions of side effects associated
with the drugs. The final articles were published under the names of
prominent researchers, one of whom claimed later that he had no idea
that Wyeth had commissioned the article on which his name appeared.
``It's really deceptive,'' said Dr. Albert J. Stunkard of the
University of Pennsylvania, whose article was published in the American
Journal of Medicine in February 1996. ``It sort of makes you uneasy.''
\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Charles Ornstein, ``Fen-phen Maker Accused of Funding Journal
Articles,'' Dallas Morning News, May 23, 1999, p. 1A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does a doctor's name appear an article without him knowing who
sponsored it? The process involved an intermediary hired by Wyeth-
Ayerst--Excerpta Medica, Inc., which received $20,000 for each article.
Excerpta's ghost writers produced first-draft versions of the articles
and then lined up well-known university researchers like Stunkard and
paid them honoraria of $1,000 to $1,500 to edit the drafts and lend
their names to the final work. Stunkard says Excerpta did not tell him
that the honorarium originally came from Wyeth. One of the name-brand
researchers even sent a letter back praising Excerpta's ghostwriting
skills. ``Let me congratulate you and your writer on an excellent and
thorough review of the literature, clearly written,'' wrote Dr. Richard
L. Atkinson, professor of medicine and nutritional science at the
University of Wisconsin Medical School. ``Perhaps I can get you to
write all my papers for me! My only general comment is that this piece
may make dexfenfluramine sound better than it really is.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``The whole process strikes me as egregious,'' said Jerome P.
Kassirer, then-editor of the New England Journal of Medicine--``the
fact that Wyeth commissioned someone to write pieces that are favorable
to them, the fact that they paid people to put their names on these
things, the fact that people were willing to put their names on it, the
fact that the journals published them without asking questions.'' Yet
it would be a mistake to imagine that these failures of the scientific
publishing system reflect greed or laziness on the part of the
individuals involved. Naivete might be a better word to describe the
mindset of the researchers who participate in this sort of arrangement.
In any case, the Wyeth-Ayerst practice is not an isolated incident.
``This is a common practice in the industry. It's not particular to
us,'' said Wyeth spokesman Doug Petkus.
``Pharmaceutical companies hire PR firms to promote drugs,'' agrees
science writer Norman Bauman. ``Those promotions include hiring
freelance writers to write articles for peer-reviewed journals, under
the byline of doctors whom they also hire. This has been discussed
extensively in the medical journals and also in the Wall Street
Journal, and I personally know people who write these journal articles.
The pay is OK--about $3,000 for a six- to ten-page journal article.''
Even the New England Journal of Medicine--often described as the
world's most prestigious medical journal--has been involved in
controversies regarding hidden economic interests that shape its
content and conclusions. In 1986, for example, NEJM published one study
and rejected another that reached opposite conclusions about the
antibiotic amoxicillin, even though both studies were based on the same
data. Scientists involved with the first, favorable study had received
$1.6 million in grants from the drug manufacturer, while the author of
the critical study had refused corporate funding. NEJM proclaimed the
pro-amoxicillin study the ``authorized'' version, and the author of the
critical study underwent years of discipline and demotions from the
academic bureaucracy at his university, which also took the side of the
industry-funded scientist. Five years later, the dissenting scientist's
critical study finally found publication in the Journal of the American
Medical Association, and other large-scale testing of children showed
that those who took amoxicillin actually experienced lower recovery
rates than children who took no medicine at all.\6\ In 1989, NEJM came
under fire again when it published an article downplaying the dangers
of exposure to asbestos while failing to disclose that the author had
ties to the asbestos industry.\7\ In 1996, a similar controversy
emerged when the journal ran an editorial touting the benefits of diet
drugs, again failing to note that the editorial's authors were paid
consultants for companies that sell the drugs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Robert Bell, Impure Science: Fraud, Compromise and Political
Influence in Scientific Research (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1992), pp. 190-219.
\7\ Brooke T. Mossman and J. Bernard L. Gee, ``Asbestos-related
Diseases,'' New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 320, no. 26 (June 29,
1989), pp. 1721-1730. For a detailed critique of this incident, see
Paul Brodeur and Bill Ravanesi, ``Old Tricks,'' The Networker
(newsletter of the Science and Environmental Health Network), June
1998.
\8\ For NEJM's response to the controversy over this incident, see
Marcia Angell and Jerome P. Kassirer, ``Editorials and Conflicts of
Interest,'' New England Journal of Medicine, No. 335 (1996), pp. 1055-
1056. For the researchers' side, see JoAnn E. Mason, ``Adventures in
Scientific Discourse,'' Epidemiology, Vol. 8, no. 3 (May 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 1997, questions of conflict of interest arose again
when the NEJM published a scathing review of Sandra Steingraber's book,
Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer. Authored by Jerry H.
Berke, the review described Steingraber as ``obsessed. . .with
environmental pollution as the cause of cancer'' and accused her of
``oversights and simplifications. . .biased work. . .notoriously poor
scholarship. . .. The focus on environmental pollution and agricultural
chemicals to explain human cancer has simply not been fruitful nor
given rise to useful preventive strategies. . .. Living Downstream
frightens, at times misinforms, and then scorns genuine efforts at
cancer prevention through lifestyle change. The objective of Living
Downstream appears ultimately to be controversy.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Jerry H. Berke, ``Living Downstream'' (book review), New
England Journal of Medicine, No. 337 (1997), p. 1562.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berke was identified alongside the review as ``Jerry H. Berke, MD,
MPH.'' The NEJM failed to disclose, however, that Berke was director of
toxicology for W.R. Grace, one of the world's largest chemical
manufacturers and a notorious polluter. A leading manufacturer of
asbestos-containing building products, W.R. Grace has been a defendant
in several thousand asbestos-related cancer lawsuits and has paid
millions of dollars in related court judgments. It is probably best-
known as the company that polluted the drinking water of the town of
Woburn, Massachusetts, and later paid an $8 million out-of-court
settlement to the families of seven Woburn children and one adult who
contracted leukemia after drinking contaminated water. During the
Woburn investigation, Grace was caught in two felony lies to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
In response to criticism of these lapses, NEJM editor Jerome P.
Kassirer insisted that his journal's conflict-of-interest policy was
``the tightest in the business.'' \10\ The sad fact is that this boast
is probably correct. In 1996, Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts University did a
study of journal disclosures that dug into the industry connections of
the authors of 789 scientific papers published by 1,105 researchers in
14 leading life science and biomedical journals. In 34 percent of the
papers, at least one of the chief authors had an identifiable financial
interest connected to the research, and Krimsky observed that the
estimate of 34 percent was probably lower than the true level of
financial conflict of interest, since he was unable to check if the
researchers owned stock or had received consulting fees from the
companies involved in commercial applications of their research. None
of these financial interests were disclosed in the journals, where
readers could see them.\11\ In 1999, a larger study by Krimsky examined
62,000 articles published in 210 different scientific journals and
found only one half of one percent of the articles included information
about the authors' research-related financial ties. Although all of the
journals had a formal requirement for disclosure of conflicts of
interest, 142 of the journals had not published a single disclosure
during 1997, the year under study.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Medical Journal Apologizes for Ethics Blunder,'' Washington
Post, December 28, 1997.
\11\ Sheldon Krimsky et al., ``Scientific Journals and Their
Authors' Financial Interests: A Pilot Study,'' Psychother Psychosom,
Vol. 67, nos. 4-5 (July-October 1998), pp. 194-201.
\12\ Reported in Ralph T. King, ``Medical Journals Rarely Disclose
Researchers' Ties, Drawing Ire,'' Wall Street Journal, February 2,
1999. See also Sheldon Krimsky, ``Will Disclosure of Financial
Interests Brighten the Image of Entrepreneurial Science?'' (Abstract A-
29), in 1999 AAAS Annual Meeting and Science Innovation Exposition:
Challenges for a New Century, C.J. Boyd, ed., American Association for
the Advancement of Science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate-sponsored scientific symposiums provide another means for
manipulating the content of medical journals. In 1992, the New England
Journal of Medicine published a survey of 625 such symposiums which
found that 42 percent of them were sponsored by a single pharmaceutical
sponsor. There was a correlation, moreover, between single-company
sponsorship and practices which commercialize or corrupt the scientific
review process, including symposiums with misleading titles designed to
promote a specific brand-name product. ``Industry-sponsored symposia
are promotional in nature and. . .journals often abandon the peer-
review process when they publish symposiums,'' the survey
concluded.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Lisa A. Bero, Alison Galbraith and Drummond Rennie, ``The
Publication of Sponsored Symposiums in Medical Journals,'' New England
Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327, no. 16 (October 15, 1992), pp. 1135-
1140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Money Matter?
As these examples illustrate, many of the factors that bias
scientific results are considerably more subtle than outright bribery
or fraud. Scientists can be naive about politics, PR and other external
factors shaping their work, and may become indignant at the suggestion
that their results are shaped by their funding. But science does not
occur in a vacuum. In studying animal populations, biologists use the
term ``selection pressure'' to describe the influence that
environmental conditions exert upon the survival of certain genetic
traits over others. Within the population of scientists, a similar type
of selection pressure occurs as industry and government support,
combined with the vicissitudes of political fashion, determine which
careers flourish and which languish.
The most dramatic trend influencing the direction of science during
the past century has been its increasing dependence on funding from
government and industry. Unlike the ``gentleman scientists'' of the
nineteenth century who enjoyed financial independence that allowed them
to explore their personal scientific interests with considerable
freedom, today's scientists are engaged in expensive research that
requires the support of sponsors with deep pockets. A number of factors
have contributed to this change, from the rise of big government to the
militarization of scientific research to the emergence of transnational
corporations as important patrons of research.
The last quarter of the twentieth century in particular has seen
increasing commercialization of science, as the rise of the so-called
``knowledge-based'' industries--computers, telecommunications and
biotechnology--prompted a wide variety of corporate research
initiatives. In 1970, Federal Government funding for research and
development totaled $14.9 billion, compared to $10.4 billion from
industry. By 1997, government expenditures were $62.7 billion compared
to $133.3 billion from industry. After adjusting for inflation,
government spending had barely risen, while business spending more than
tripled.\14\ Much of this increase, moreover, took place through
corporate partnerships with universities and other academic
institutions, blurring the traditional line between private and public
research. Between 1981 and 1995, the proportion of U.S. industry-
produced articles that were coauthored with at least one academic
researcher roughly doubled, from 21.6 percent to 40.8 percent. The
increase was even more dramatic in the field of biomedical research,
where the number of coauthored articles quadrupled.\15\ According to
the Association of American Medical Colleges, corporate sponsorship of
university medical research has grown from about 5 percent in the early
1980s to as much as 25 percent in some places today.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``U.S. Expenditures for Research and Development by Source of
Funds and Performer,'' Wall Street Journal Almanac 1999 (New York, NY:
Ballantine Books, 1998), p. 363.
\15\ ``Industry Trends in Research Support and Links to Public
Research,'' National Science Board, 1998, <http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/
1998/nsb9899/nsb9899.htm>, (July 25, 2000).
\16\ Melissa B. Robinson, ``Medical School Faculty Say Budget Cuts
Are Hurting Teaching,'' Associated Press, May 19, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate funding has transformed scientific and engineering
knowledge into commodities in the new ``information economy,'' giving
rise to an elaborate web of interlocking directorates between corporate
and academic boardrooms and an endless variety of university-industry
partnerships and ``technology transfers,'' from business-funded
research parks to fee-for-service work such as drug trials carried out
on university campuses.
``More and more we see the career trajectories of scholars,
especially of scientists, rise and fall not in relation to their
intellectually-judged peer standing, but rather in relation to their
skill at selling themselves to those, especially in the biomedical
field, who have large sums of money to spend on a well-marketed promise
of commercial viability,'' observed Martin Michaelson, an attorney who
has represented Harvard University and a variety of other leading
institutions of higher education. ``It is a kind of gold rush,''
Michaelson said at a 1999 symposium sponsored by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. ``More and more we see
incentives to hoard, not disseminate, new knowledge; to suppress, not
publish, research results; to titillate prospective buyers, rather than
to make full disclosure to academic colleagues. And we see today, more
than ever before, new science first--generally, very carefully, and
thinly--described in the fine print of initial public offerings and SEC
filings, rather than in the traditional, fuller loci of academic
communication.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Remarks by Martin Michaelson, delivered at AAAS symposium on
Secrecy in Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA, March 29, 1999 <http://
www.aaas.org/spp/secrecy/Presents/michael.htm>, (July 25, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry-academic entanglements can take many forms, some of which
are not directly related to funding for specific research.
Increasingly, scientists are being asked to sit on the board of
directors of for-profit companies, a service which requires relatively
little time but can pay very well--often in excess of $50,000 per year.
Other private-sector perks may include gifts to researchers of lab
equipment or cash, or generous payment for speeches, travel and
consulting. The benefits that come with these sorts of arrangements are
self-evident. The downside, however, is that corporate funding creates
a culture of secrecy that can be chilling to free academic inquiry.
Businesses frequently require scientists to keep ``proprietary
information'' under wraps so that competitors can't horn in on their
trade secrets.
In 1994 and 1995, researchers led by David Blumenthal at the
Massachusetts General Hospital surveyed more than 3,000 academic
researchers involved in the life sciences and found that 64 percent of
their respondents reported having some sort of financial relationship
with industry. They also found that scientists with industry
relationships were more likely to delay or withhold publication of
their data. Their study, published by the Journal of the American
Medical Association, found that during the three years prior to the
survey, 20 percent of researchers reported delaying publication of
their research results for more than six months. The reasons cited for
delaying publication included the desire to patent applications from
their discovery and a desire by some researchers to ``slow the
dissemination of undesired results.'' The practice of withholding
publication or refusing to share data with other scientists was
particularly common among biotechnology researchers.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ David Blumenthal and others, ``Withholding Research Results in
Academic Life Science,'' Journal of the American Medical Association,
Vol. 277, no. 15 (April 16, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``It used to be that if you published you could ask about results,
reagents--now you have these confidentiality agreements,'' said Nobel
Prize-winning biochemist Paul Berg, a professor of biochemistry at
Stanford University. ``Sometimes if you accept a grant from a company,
you have to include a proviso that you won't distribute anything except
with its okay. It has a negative impact on science.''
The problem of secrecy in science is particularly troubling when it
involves conflicts of interest between a company's marketing objectives
and the public's right to know. When research results are not to a
sponsor's liking, the company may use heavy-handed tactics to suppress
them--even if doing so comes at the expense of public health and the
common good.
One such case came to light in 1997 regarding the work of Betty
Dong, a researcher at the University of California. In the late 1980s,
the Boots Pharmaceutical company took an interest in Dong's work after
she published a limited study which suggested that Synthroid, a thyroid
medication manufactured by Boots, was superior to drugs produced by the
company's competitors. Boots offered $250,000 to finance a large-scale
study that would confirm these preliminary findings. To the company's
dismay, however, the larger study, which Dong completed in 1990,
contradicted her earlier findings and showed that Synthroid was no more
effective than the cheaper drugs made by Boots's competitors. What
followed was a seven-year battle to discredit Dong and prevent
publication of her work. The contract which Dong and her university had
signed with the company gave it exclusive access to the prepublished
results of the study as well as final approval over whether it would
ever be published. The study sat on the shelf for five years while
Boots waged a campaign to discredit Dong and the study, bombarding the
chancellor and other university officials with allegations of unethical
conduct and quibbles over the study's method, even though the company
itself had previously approved the method. In 1994, Dong submitted a
paper based on her work to the Journal of the American Medical
Association. It was accepted for publication and already set in type
when the company invoked its veto right, forcing her to withdraw
it.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Drummond Rennie, ``Thyroid Storm'' (editorial), Journal of the
American Medical Association, Vol. 277, no. 15 (April 16, 1997), p.
1242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1995, Boots was purchased by Knoll Pharmaceutical, which
continued to suppress Dong's conclusions. While she remained unable to
publish her own results, Knoll published a reinterpretation of her data
under the authorship of Gilbert Mayor, a doctor employed by the
company. Mayor published his reanalysis of Dong's data without
acknowledging her or her research associates, a practice that JAMA
would later characterize as publishing ``results hijacked from those
who did the work.'' \20\ After further legal battles and an expose of
Knoll's heavy-handed tactics in the Wall Street Journal, Dong was
finally allowed to publish her own version of the study in the Journal
of the American Medical Association in 1997--nearly seven years after
its completion. During those seven years, Boots/Knoll had used
Synthroid's claims of superiority to dominate the $600-million-per-year
synthetic thyroid market. The publication of her work in JAMA prompted
a class-action lawsuit on the part of Synthroid users who had been
effectively duped into paying an estimated $365 million per year more
than they needed for their medication. Knoll settled the lawsuit out of
court for $98 million--a fraction of the extra profits it had made
during the years it spent suppressing Dong's study.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Ibid.
\21\ Shenk, pp. 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another attempt to suppress research occurred in 1995, when liver
specialist Nancy Olivieri at the University of Toronto wanted to warn
patients about the toxic side effects of a drug she was testing. The
Canadian drug giant Apotex, which was sponsoring the study in hopes of
marketing the drug, told her to keep quiet, citing a nondisclosure
agreement that she had signed. When Olivieri alerted her patients
anyway and published her concerns in the New England Journal of
Medicine, Apotex threatened her with legal action and she was fired
from her hospital, a recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars each
year in research funding from Apotex.
In 1997, David Kern, an occupational health expert at Brown
University, discovered eight cases of a new, deadly lung disease among
workers at a Microfibres, Inc, a manufacturer of finely-cut nylon flock
based in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Microfibres tried to suppress Kern's
finding, citing a confidentiality agreement that he had signed at the
time of an educational visit to the company more than a year before the
start of his research. When Kern spoke out anyway, administrators at
the hospital and university where he worked (a recipient of charitable
contributions from Microfibres) insisted that he withdraw a previously
submitted scientific communique about the disease outbreak and that he
cease providing medical care to his patients who worked at the company.
Kern's program--the state's only occupational health center--was
subsequently closed, and his job was eliminated.\22\ Even more
disturbing was the response of many of his research colleagues. ``There
were courageous folks who stood up for me, but most looked the other
way,'' he said. ``I'm mightily discouraged by the failure of the
community to do more.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Robert Lee Hotz, ``Secrecy Is Often the Price of Medical
Research Funding,'' Los Angeles Times, May 18, 1999, p. A-1.
\23\ Richard A. Knox, ``Disclosure Fight May Push Doctor Out of
Occupational Health Field,'' Boston Globe, May 22, 1999, p. B5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond the problem of outright fraud and suppression, moreover,
there is a larger and more pervasive problem: the systemwide bias that
industry funding creates among researchers in commercially profitable
fields. ``Virtually every academic in biotechnology is involved in
exploiting it commercially,'' observed Orville Chapman of the
University of California at Los Angeles. ``We've lost our credentials
as unbiased on such subjects as cloning or the modification of living
things, and we seem singularly reluctant to think it through.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ ``Special Report: What Happens when Universities Become
Businesses?'' (Research Corporation Annual Report, 1997), p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A host of techniques exist for manipulating research protocols to
produce studies whose conclusions fit their sponsor's predetermined
interests. These techniques include adjusting the time of a study (so
that toxic effects do not have time to emerge), subtle manipulations of
target and control groups or dosage levels, and subjective
interpretations of complex data. Often such methods stop short of
outright fraud, but lead to predictable results. ``Usually associations
that sponsor research have a fairly good idea what the outcome will be,
or they won't fund it,'' says Joseph Hotchkiss of Cornell University.
When researchers have examined the link between funding sources and
research outcomes, they have found a striking pattern of
correspondence:
<bullet> In 1994, researchers in Boston studied the
relationship between funding and reported drug performance in
published trials of anti-inflammatory drugs used in the
treatment of arthritis. They reviewed 56 drug trials and found
that in every single case, the manufacturer-associated drug was
reported as being equal or superior in efficacy and toxicity to
the comparison drug. ``These claims of superiority, especially
in regard to side effects, are often not supported by the trial
data,'' they added. ``These data raise concerns about selective
publication or biased interpretation of results in
manufacturer-associated trials.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ P.A. Rochon, J.H. Gurwitz, R.W. Simms, P.R. Fortin, D.T.
Felson, K.L. Minaker, et al, ``A Study of Manufacturer-Supported Trials
of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs in the Treatment of
Arthritis,'' Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 154, no. 2 (January
24, 1994), pp. 157-163.
<bullet> In 1996, researchers Mildred K. Cho and Lisa A. Bero
compared studies of new drug therapies and found that 98
percent of the studies funded by a drug's maker reached
favorable conclusions about its safety and efficacy, compared
to 76 percent of studies funded by independent sources.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Mildred K. Cho and Lisa A. Bero, ``The Quality of Drug Studies
Published in Symposium Proceedings,'' Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol.
124, no. 5 (3/1/96), pp. 485-489.
<bullet> In 1998, the New England Journal of Medicine
published a study which examined the relationship between drug-
industry funding and research conclusions about calcium-channel
blockers, a class of drugs used to treat high blood pressure.
There are safety concerns about the use of calcium-channel
blockers because of research showing that they present a higher
risk of heart attacks than other older and cheaper forms of
blood pressure medication such as diuretics and beta-blockers.
The NEJM study examined 70 articles on channel blockers and
classified them into three categories: favorable, neutral and
critical. It found that 96 percent of the authors of favorable
articles had financial ties to manufacturers of calcium-channel
blockers, compared with 60 percent of the neutral authors and
37 percent of the critical authors. Only two of the 70 articles
disclosed the authors' corporate ties.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Henry Thomas Stelfox and others, ``Conflict of Interest in the
Debate over Calcium-Channel Antagonists,'' New England Journal of
Medicine, Vol. 338, No. 2 (January 8, 1998), pgs. 101-106.
<bullet> In October 1999, researchers at Northwestern
University in Chicago studied the relationship between funding
sources and conclusions reached by studies of new cancer drugs
and found that studies sponsored by drug companies were nearly
eight times less likely to report unfavorable conclusions than
studies paid for by nonprofit organizations.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ M. Friedberg, B. Saffran, T.J. Stinson, W. Nelson and C.L.
Bennett, ``Evaluation of Conflict of Interest in Economic Analyses of
New Drugs Used in Oncology,'' Journal of the American Medical
Association, Vol. 282, no. 15 (October 20, 1999), pp. 1453-1457.
Drug research is not the only field in which this pattern can be
detected. In 1996, journalists Dan Fagin and Marianne Lavelle reviewed
recent studies published in major scientific journals regarding the
safety of four chemicals: the herbicides alachlor and atrazine,
formaldehyde, and perchloroethylene, the carcinogenic solvent used for
dry cleaning clothes. When nonindustry scientists did the studies, 60
percent returned results unfavorable to the chemicals involved, whereas
industry-funding scientists came back with favorable results 74 percent
of the time. Fagin and Lavelle observed a particularly strong biasing
influence with respect to agribusiness financing for research related
to farm weed control. ``Weed scientists--a close-knit fraternity of
researchers in industry, academia, and government--like to call
themselves `nozzleheads' or `spray and pray guys,' '' they stated. ``As
the nicknames suggest, their focus is usually much narrower than weeds.
As many of its leading practitioners admit, weed science almost always
means herbicide science, and herbicide science almost always means
herbicide-justification science. Using their clout as the most
important source of research dollars, chemical companies have
skillfully wielded weed scientists to ward off the EPA, organic
farmers, and others who want to wean American farmers away from their
dependence on atrazine, alachlor, and other chemical weedkillers.''
\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Dan Fagin and Marianne Lavelle, Toxic Deception (Secaucus, NJ:
Birch Lane Press, 1996), pp. 51-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solutions
Recognizing the problem of funding-driven bias, leading medical
journals recently announced the adoption of a uniform policy that
reserves the right to refuse to publish drug company-sponsored studies
unless the researchers involved are guaranteed scientific independence.
Hopefully, this announcement from the New England Journal of Medicine,
the Lancet, the Annals of Internal Medicine and the Journal of the
American Medical Association will serve as a signal for other journals
to adopt similar policies.
In addition, however, researchers and medical journals should adopt
stricter standards of disclosure regarding funding itself. Some
researchers bridle at this expectation. When asked who funds their
research, they may argue that this question is irrelevant or that
merely asking the question casts aspersions on their integrity.
Individual integrity, however, is not the real issue. There is nothing
inherently wrong with research sponsored by companies with a vested
interest in its outcome. Nevertheless, neither researchers nor the
sponsors of their research can be expected to be completely objective
or to recognize their own bias if it exists. Funding does not
necessarily create bias, but it selects bias and is a leading indicator
of bias. For this reason alone, a researcher's funding and other
possible financial conflicts of interest are important information
which should be published as routinely as study methodologies and
statistical confidence levels. Funding itself may not taint a
researcher's integrity, but lack of candor about funding should be
regarded as an ethical breach, and both researchers and scientific
journals should work to foster a culture of expectations in which full
and frank disclosure of such ties becomes the norm rather than the
exception.
Finally, it is important to maintain an ``information commons''--a
space for research funded by nonprofit organizations, universities and
governmental bodies. Research by these institutions may carry its own
political agendas, but it is an important alternative and counterweight
to proprietary, profit-driven research.
Biography for Sheldon Rampton
Since 1994 Sheldon Rampton has been the Research Director for the
Center for Media and Democracy, a non-profit organization based in
Madison, Wisconsin. Individuals and other non-profit organizations fund
the Center; it does not accept government, corporate or labor union
grants. Rampton has authored numerous articles, commentaries and books
on the subject of this testimony including Trust Us We're Experts: How
Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future and Toxic
Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations
Industry. He was born and raised in Nevada, graduated from Princeton
University, and works in Madison, Wisconsin.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. I find that my southern
upbringing and the difficulty of interrupting people for fear
would seem like bad manners coming into conflict with my role
as Chairman, and that upbringing was not even overcome by three
years in law school. But if you could try to keep generally
within the five minutes. We are not going to be real, real
harsh about that time limit. It would be helpful to all of us.
Dr. McCarthy.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES J. MCCARTHY, ALEXANDER AGASSIZ PROFESSOR
OF BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY; BOARD MEMBER,
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
Dr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
thank you for holding this hearing and giving me the
opportunity to testify today about efforts to distort the
science of climate change.
As you pointed out, I am the Alexander Agassiz Professor of
Biological Oceanography at Harvard. I am the President-Elect of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and I
am a board member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. I also
co-chaired Working Group II of the Inter-Governmental Panel and
Climate Change, IPCC, for the Third Assessment, which reported
out in 2001.
I will begin today by describing the robust and consistent
scientific understanding of climate change and the threat it
poses. I will then summarize two recent reports of the Union of
Concerned Scientists to show how the Bush Administration,
political appointees, and a network of Exxon-funded, ExxonMobil
funded organizations have sought to distort, manipulate, and
suppress climate science so as to confuse the American public
about the urgency of the global warming problem, and thus,
forestall a strong policy response. I will close by providing
recommendations to protect the integrity of science and the
free flow of scientific information and to insure strong
policies that will provide a healthy climate for our children.
Over the past 25 years a broad consensus on the science of
climate change has emerged. In June, 2005, the Academies of
Science in each of the G8 nations plus India, China, and
Brazil, issued a joint statement which said that, ``The
scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently
clear to justify nations taking prompt action.'' In the United
States the American Geophysical Union, the American
Meteorological Society, and the American Association for the
Advancement of Science have all made similar statements about
the urgency of the climate threat. And last month as Chairman
Gordon pointed out, the IPCC released a report which concludes
that the planet is unequivocally warming and that the warming
we are seeing is due primarily to human activities such as the
burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of forests. And as
Chairman Gordon pointed out, the United States and over 100
other nations endorsed this conclusion.
How is it then that the non-scientific organizations and a
few individuals are able to cast such doubt on the common
statement of the world's leading scientific academies and the
IPCC? A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists
provides an explanation. Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air documents
how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's
disinformation tactics as well as some of the same
organizations and personnel to cloud the scientific
understanding of climate change and to delay action.
ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998,
and 2005, to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek
to confuse the public on global warming science. Virtually all
of these groups consist of an overlapping collection of
individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific
advisors to public and republic the works of a small group of
climate change contrurians.
Finally, the report reveals ExxonMobil's influence over
Government policy, including successfully urging the Bush
Administration to back away from the U.S. commitment to the
Kyoto Protocol and successfully lobbying the White House to
withdraw its support for the re-nomination of Robert Watson, an
internationally respected U.S. scientist to a second term as
Chairman of the IPCC. Political interference at the highest
levels is harming federal science and is threatening the health
and safety of Americans. Our recent report on interference in
the work of federal climate scientists, atmosphere of pressure,
found that some of our nation's highest-quality climate science
is being suppressed. One hundred and fifty federal climate
scientists, three out of five respondents personally
experienced at least one incident of political interference
over the past five years. That number should be zero. Tarek
Maassarani will speak more about some of these findings in his
statement.
Chairman Miller and Chairman Gordon, I am sure I speak for
all scientists when I thank you for the initiative that you
have taken with your letter to 11 federal agencies regarding
their science media practices.
Recommendations. Congress should take action to prevent the
worst effects of global warming, ignore the disinformation
campaign funded by ExxonMobil, and take steps to protect
federal climate scientists from political interference. There
are several concrete steps that need to restore scientific
integrity.
I congratulate the House of Representatives for the passage
of legislation extending whistleblower protections to
scientists, and we hope that the Senate will follow your lead.
The constitutional right of federal scientists to speak freely
must be guaranteed. Scientists should not be subject to undue
restrictions on media contacts, and finally, all Americans must
be guaranteed access to the scientific basis for the agency
decisions that affect their health and safety and are paid for
with their tax dollars.
In conclusion, Congress needs to recognize ExxonMobil's
disinformation campaign for what it is. I urge Members of
Congress to draw the scientific information needed to formulate
wise climate policy from bona fide scientific organizations and
member scientists who publish in the scientific literature and
to assiduously avoid being influenced by the protestations of
small but vocal advocacy groups funded by ExxonMobil for the
express purpose of casting doubt on a robust body of climate
science.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. McCarthy follows:]
Prepared Statement of James J. McCarthy
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for holding
this hearing, and for giving me the opportunity to testify today about
efforts to distort the science of climate change. My name is James
McCarthy, and I am Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological
Oceanography at Harvard University. From 1986 to 1993, I served as
Chair of the International Committee that establishes research
priorities and oversees implementation of the International Geosphere--
Biosphere Program. From 1997 to 2001, I co-chaired Working Group II of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had
responsibilities for assessing impacts of and vulnerabilities to global
climate change for the Third IPCC Assessment. I am President-Elect of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and member of
the Board of Union of Concerned Scientists.
It is now clear that for a number of years, both Bush
Administration political appointees and a network of organizations
funded by the world's largest private energy company, ExxonMobil, have
sought to distort, manipulate and suppress climate science, so as to
confuse the American public about the reality and urgency of the global
warming problem, and thus forestall a strong policy response.
Unfortunately, these efforts have misled many individuals,
including elected officials, to believe that the human influences on
climate change are either negligible or of little consequence. The
science, however, leaves no doubt that human induced climate change is
of enormous potential consequence, and clearly one of the most urgent
issues of our times. It is also increasingly clear that we only have a
narrow window of time--a decade or less--within which to initiate
serious action if we are to avoid the highly negative impacts of global
warming that are otherwise projected for this century.
In my testimony, I will begin by describing the process by which
scientists have reached a robust and consistent position on our
understanding of climate change and the threats it poses. I will then
summarize two recent reports by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The
first, ``Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air,'' details how ExxonMobil
manufactured uncertainty on climate change, and the second,
``Atmosphere of Pressure,'' describes how federal climate science has
been systematically manipulated and suppressed. I will close by
providing recommendations for Congress, the administration and
ExxonMobil to protect the integrity of science and the free flow of
scientific information and to ensure strong public policies that will
provide a healthy climate for our children and grandchildren.
The Role of Science in Addressing Global Warming
First, let me outline where the scientific understanding of climate
change and the threat it poses now stands. Science is an evolving body
of knowledge, which is always open to challenge and new ideas. But
there is a process by which this occurs, one that gives these
challenges and new ideas credibility and legitimacy. This is through
publication in peer reviewed scientific journals.
Novel findings do not always readily attain widespread acceptance
in the scientific community. For example, the most important
contribution to Earth sciences in the last four decades may be the
discovery of seafloor-spreading and plate tectonics. And yet, some
distinguished Earth scientists went to their graves unconvinced of the
evidence.
Sometimes new findings, seemingly credible in the initial
publication, are eventually proven wrong. The process of science is to
continue to question and challenge both new and well-established
findings. No scientist would ever discourage this skepticism.
The understanding of how changes in the atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases can affect Earth's temperature dates to the late
1800's. But due to the complex dynamics of climate, it took time for
scientists to understand the linkages between chemical cycles involving
land, ocean and atmospheric processes, and to ascertain clear trends in
climate and in greenhouse gas concentrations. Was the Earth warming or
cooling? Could the amount of heat-trapping gases produced by humans
really be large enough to affect change? These and many other sensible
questions were a common motivator of scientific studies in the last
century. It was not until the latter half of the 20th century that key
pieces of the relationship between increases in concentrations of heat-
trapping gases and climate came into clear view.
For the past 25 years, many national academies of science have
reviewed the body of climate science and have spoken consistently
regarding the observed changes in Earth's climate and the evidence that
human activities are the primary source of heat-trapping emissions
responsible for global warming.
In June, 2005, the academies of science in each of the G-8 nations
plus India, China, and Brazil issued a joint statement summarizing the
science relating to anthropogenic climate change, which declared:
``. . .there is now strong evidence that significant global
warming is occurring. . . It is likely that most of the warming
in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. . .
This warming has already led to changes in Earth's climate. . .
The scientific understanding of climate change is now
sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It
is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that
they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term
reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.''
Within the Unites States most climate scientists are members of one
or more of the following professional organizations which publish
scientific journals and hold regular meetings for scientists to present
their latest findings: the American Geophysical Union (41,000 members),
the American Meteorology Society (AMS) (11,000 members), and the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (120,000 individual
and institutional members). These preeminent scientific societies have
all made similar statements about recent climate change. Here, for
example is the statement of the AMS:
``Despite uncertainties, there is adequate evidence from
observations and interpretations of climate simulations to
conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are
warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this
change; and that further climate change will continue to have
important impacts on human societies, on economies, on
ecosystems and on wildlife through the 21st century and
beyond.''
And, just last month, the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) released a report which concludes that the planet
is unequivocally warming--their word, unequivocal--and that the warming
we're seeing is due primarily to the coal, oil and natural gas we burn
to power our homes, businesses and transportation.
Despite this strong scientific understanding, media coverage and
political debate on global warming science often give undue credence to
the views of little known organizations and statements by individuals
purporting to be experts on climate science.
A medical analogy comes to mind. Official position statements of
the National Academies Institute of Medicine, the American Medical
Association, the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer
Society state that medical evidence strongly links cigarette smoking to
lung and heart disease. Would any of us who are not experts in this
field of medical science feel qualified challenging the views of these
august bodies?
How is it then, that non-scientific organizations and a few
individuals are able to cast doubt on the common statement of the
world's leading scientific academies, the IPCC, and on more than a
century of scientific discovery regarding climate science? A recent
report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) provides an
explanation.
ExxonMobil's Disinformation Campaign\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ References available in the full report, available at
www.ucsusa.org/news/press<INF>-</INF>release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-
tobacco.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2007, UCS released ``Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: How
ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on
Climate Science.'' The report documents how ExxonMobil, the world's
largest energy company, has for years underwritten a sophisticated
disinformation campaign whose aim has been to deceive the public and
policy-makers about the reality of global warming. The campaign bears
striking similarities to the tobacco industry's decades-long effort to
mislead the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to
lung cancer and heart disease. In fact, some of the same organizations
and individuals involved in the tobacco industry effort are also part
of the ExxonMobil's disinformation campaign.
Like the tobacco industry in previous decades, ExxonMobil has:
<bullet> Raised doubts about even the most indisputable
scientific evidence;
<bullet> Funded an array of front organizations to create the
appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal
climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed
scientific findings;
<bullet> Attempted to portray its opposition to action as a
positive quest for ``sound science'' rather than business self-
interest; and,
<bullet> Used its access to the Bush Administration to block
federal policies and shape government communications on global
warming.
ExxonMobil Contributions to Climate Contrarian Groups
Specifically, the UCS report shows that between 1998 and 2005,
ExxonMobil funneled close to $16 million to a network of 43 ideological
and advocacy groups that seek to manufacture uncertainty about the
strong scientific consensus on global warming. These groups promote
spokespeople who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings or
cherry-pick facts in an attempt to mislead the media and public into
thinking there is vigorous debate in the mainstream scientific
community about climate change. Among the ExxonMobil-funded groups are
established conservative and anti-regulation think tanks and
organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute. There are also
a myriad of smaller, lesser known groups, including the Heartland
Institute ($560,000), the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public
Policy ($763,500), and Frontiers of Freedom ($1,000,200).
There are two disturbing themes about the groups funded by
ExxonMobil. First, virtually all of the 43 organizations publish and
publicize the work of a nearly identical small group of spokespeople
who work to misrepresent climate science and confuse the public's
understanding of global warming. Most of these organizations also
include these same individuals as board members or scientific advisers.
Second, ExxonMobil has often been the major underwriter of these
groups' climate change-related activities.
There are many examples of what I've described in the UCS report.
Solid state physicist Frederick Seitz, for instance, is the emeritus
chair of the ExxonMobil funded Marshall Institute and is also
affiliated with at least four other groups receiving funding from
ExxonMobil. Patrick Michaels and Fred Singer, both prolific climate
change skeptics, each have ties to no fewer than 11 organizations
funded by ExxonMobil.
In terms of the organizations themselves, one of the most striking
features to emerge from the data is the fact that ExxonMobil is often
the major underwriter of these groups' climate change-related efforts.
A good example is a Washington, DC.-based group called the Committee
for a Constructive Tomorrow. This organization has, since 1998,
received nearly a half a million dollars from ExxonMobil. The company's
2004 grant to this organization made up approximately a quarter of the
group's total expenses for that year.
Another notable example is the Competitive Enterprise Institute
which has, to date, received more than $2 million in ExxonMobil
funding.
All these figures and many more like them are documented in the
report and its appendices. Part of UCS's goal was to provide a
comprehensive reference of people, organizations, and funding data on
this topic, and with close to 300 footnotes, the report provides plenty
of source material for people to look into the story more deeply for
themselves.
ExxonMobil Links to Big Tobacco
In addition to providing this information, though, the report also
details links in strategy and personnel between ExxonMobil's efforts
and those of the tobacco industry. It includes the text, for instance,
of a seminal 1998 memo that ExxonMobil helped draft as part of a small
group called the Global Climate Science Team that set much of the
company's strategy in motion. As the report shows, this internal memo
didn't just mimic the tobacco industry's strategy, it even drew upon
key personnel who had implemented it.
For instance, Randy Randol, ExxonMobil's senior environmental
lobbyist at the time, was a member of this Global Climate Science Team.
Notably, so was Steve Milloy, who headed a tobacco front organization.
As we now know from internal documents made public by court order, the
tobacco firm Philip Morris actually hired a PR firm to create this
group--called the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition--in 1993 to
mislead the public about the dangers of second-hand smoke. In an effort
to disguise its identity as a tobacco industry front group, TASSC also
fostered support for a host of other anti-regulatory efforts on issues
ranging from asbestos to radon.
Milloy is one of several veterans of the tobacco industry's
disinformation campaign who this report shows are involved in
ExxonMobil's similar, ongoing efforts on global warming. As recently as
2004, ExxonMobil has continued to fund Milloy's efforts. He currently
runs two organizations out of his Maryland home-the resuscitated
Advancement of Sound Science Center and something called the Free
Enterprise Education Institute. ExxonMobil's close connection with some
of the very same personnel who helped engineer the tobacco industry's
blatant and shameful disinformation campaign speaks for itself.
ExxonMobil's Political Influence
The UCS report shows that ExxonMobil's influence over government
policy may surpass that of the tobacco industry it emulates. The report
documents that during the 2000-2006 election cycles, ExxonMobil's PAC
and individuals affiliated with the company gave more than $4 million
to federal candidates and parties. Shortly after President Bush took
office, ExxonMobil began to wield its influence. In 2001, ExxonMobil
participated in Vice President Cheney's ``Energy Task Force,'' which
recommended a continued reliance on fossil fuels.
ExxonMobil also successfully urged the Bush Administration to back
away from the U.S. Commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. Notes from a 2001
talk by State Department official Paula Dobriansky confirm the role
ExxonMobil played in persuading the Administration to abandon the
international agreement. Another 2001 memo from ExxonMobil urged the
Administration to hire Harlan Watson, a vocal opponent of climate
action, as the lead negotiator for the U.S. on international climate
policy. Since then H. Watson has steadfastly opposed any U.S.
engagement in the Kyoto process.
Other documents reveal that in February 2001, following the release
of an authoritative report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), ExxonMobil successfully lobbied the White House to
withdraw its support for renomination of Robert Watson to a second term
as Chairman of the IPCC. R. Watson, an internationally respected
scientist, has served as the Director of the Science Division at NASA
and was at the time a chief scientist at the World Bank.
In one of the most striking examples of ExxonMobil's influence, the
administration hired Philip Cooney to serve as the Chief of Staff in
the White House Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) from 2001-2005.
Before joining the Administration, Cooney had spent a decade as a
lawyer for the American Petroleum institute, the oil industry lobby
that worked with ExxonMobil to develop its disinformation campaign. In
that capacity, Cooney sought to prevent the U.S. from entering into any
kind of international agreement or enacting any domestic legislation
that might lead to mandatory limits on global warming emissions.
Cooney, a lawyer with an undergraduate degree in economics, had no
scientific credentials that might qualify him to rewrite the findings
of top government scientists. Nonetheless, during his tenure at CEQ, he
spent a significant amount of time censoring and distorting government
reports so as to exaggerate scientific uncertainty about global
warming. One particularly damning incident involved Cooney's efforts to
sabotage the Administration's own May 2002 ``U.S. Climate Action
Report,'' which concluded that climate change posed a significant risk
and was caused by human-made emissions. The report drew on the findings
of the ``U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of
Climate Variability and Change,'' an earlier government report that
predated the Bush Administration.
E-mail correspondence obtained through a Freedom of Information Act
request shows that Cooney contacted Myron Ebell at the ExxonMobil-
funded Competitive Enterprise Institute for help in undermining the
Administration's own report. Ebell advised the Administration to
distance itself from the report. Shortly after, President Bush did
exactly that, denigrating the report as having been ``put out by the
bureaucracy.'' CEI then filed the second of two lawsuits calling for
the Bush Administration to withdraw the National Assessment, on which
the report in question was based.
Cooney's inappropriate activities came to light when Rick Piltz, a
whistle-blowing researcher at the U.S. Government's interagency Climate
Change Science Program, resigned in protest over Cooney's censorship
practices and other Bush Administration abuses of climate science. Two
days after the New York Times first reported on Piltz's revelations,
Cooney resigned. It was not surprising when, one week after he left the
White house, Cooney accepted a high-ranking public relations position
at ExxonMobil.
The Bottom Line on ExxonMobil
In an effort reminiscent of the tobacco industry, ExxonMobil has
helped create an echo chamber that serves to amplify the views of a
carefully selected group of spokespeople whose work has been largely
discredited by the scientific community. Hopefully, as the connections
documented in this report become known, lawmakers, media, and the
public will become more attuned to the relationships that many of the
most vocal critics of climate change science and their organizations
have to a corporation that has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the
science and respond to the concerns so succinctly summarized in the
joint statement of the 11 Academies and the recent IPCC report.
Protecting Federal Climate Scientists from Political Interference
Federal climate science research is at the forefront of assessing
fundamental causes of global warming and the future dangers it could
pose to our nation and the world. Such research is of tremendous value
to many Americans planning for these risks, including coastal
communities designing infrastructure for protecting against storm
surges; civil authorities planning for heat waves; power companies
preparing for higher peak energy demands; forest managers planning
wildfire management programs; farmers adjusting to changing
precipitation patterns; and policy-makers evaluating energy
legislation. Therefore, it is crucial that the best available science
on climate change be disseminated to the public, through government
websites, reports, and press releases. In recent years, however, this
science has been increasingly tailored to reflect political goals
rather than scientific fact.
Out of concern that inappropriate political interference and media
favoritism are compromising federal climate science, the Union of
Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government Accountability Project
(GAP) undertook independent investigations of federal climate science.
UCS mailed a questionnaire to more than 1,600 climate scientists at
seven federal agencies to gauge the extent to which politics was
playing a role in scientists' research. Surveys were also sent to
scientists at the independent (non-federal) National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to serve as a comparison with the
experience of federal scientists. About 19 percent of all scientists
responded (279 from federal agencies and 29 from NCAR). At the same
time, GAP conducted 40 in-depth interviews with federal climate
scientists and other officials and analyzed thousands of pages of
government documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) and inside sources, regarding agency media policies and
congressional communications.
These two complementary investigations arrived at similar
conclusions regarding the state of federal climate research and the
need for strong policies to protect the integrity of science and the
free flow of scientific information. Together, they formed the basis
for ``Atmosphere of Pressure,'' a joint report by the Union of
Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project.
Findings of the Report: ``Atmosphere of Pressure''
Political Interference with Climate Science: The Federal Government
needs accurate scientific information to craft effective policies.
Political interference with the work of federal scientists threatens
the quality and integrity of these policies. As such, no scientist
should ever encounter any of the various types of political
interference described in our survey questions. Yet unacceptably large
numbers of federal climate scientists personally experienced instances
of interference over the past five years:
<bullet> 57 scientists (21 percent of all respondents to the
question) personally experienced pressure to eliminate the
words ``climate change,'' ``global warming,'' or other similar
terms from a variety of communications.
<bullet> 41 scientists (15 percent) personally experienced
changes or edits during review that changed the meaning of
scientific findings.
<bullet> 47 scientists (18 percent) personally experienced
statements by officials at their agencies that misrepresented
scientists' findings.
<bullet> 60 scientists (22 percent) personally experienced the
disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other
science-based materials relating to climate.
<bullet> 97 scientists (36 percent) personally experienced new
or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-
related work.
<bullet> 17 scientists (six percent) personally experienced
situations in which scientists have actively objected to,
resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of
pressure to change scientific findings.
<bullet> In all, 150 scientists (58 percent) said they had
personally experienced at least one incident of some form of
interference within the past five years, for a total of at
least 435 incidents of political interference.
The more frequently a climate scientist's work touches on sensitive
or controversial issues, the more interference he or she reported. More
than three-quarters (78 percent) of those survey respondents who self-
reported that their research ``always'' or ``frequently'' touches on
issues that could be considered sensitive or controversial also
reported they had personally experienced at least one incident of
inappropriate interference. More than one-quarter (27 percent) of this
same group had experienced six or more such incidents in the past five
years.
In contrast to this evidence of widespread interference in climate
science at federal agencies, scientists at the independent National
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), who are not federal employees,
reported far fewer instances of interference. Only 22 percent of all
NCAR respondents had personally experienced such incidents over the
past five years. Of course, this is still unacceptable; no scientist
should be subjected to such political interference.
Barriers to Communication: Federal scientists have a constitutional
right to speak about their scientific research, and the American public
has a right to be informed of the findings of taxpayer-supported
research. Restrictions on scientists who report findings contrary to an
administration's preferred policies undermine these basic rights. These
practices also contribute to a general misunderstanding of the findings
of climate science and degrade our government's ability to make
effective policies on topics ranging from public health to agriculture
to disaster preparation.
The investigation uncovered numerous examples of public affairs
officers at federal agencies taking a highly active role in regulating
communications between agency scientists and the media--in effect
serving as gatekeepers for scientific information.
Among the examples taken from interviews and FOIA documents:
<bullet> One agency scientist, whose research illustrates a
possible connection between hurricanes and global warming, was
repeatedly barred from speaking to the media. Press inquiries
on the subject were routed to another scientist whose views
more closely matched official administration policy.
<bullet> Government scientists routinely encounter difficulty
in obtaining approval for official press releases that
highlight research into the causes and consequences of global
warming.
<bullet> Media policies at federal agencies went beyond
notifying public affairs officers of upcoming interviews or
recapping the content of past interviews. In some cases
requests to speak with the media were only granted under the
condition that a public affairs officer be physically present
at the interview. This practice of having their statements
monitored may have made some scientists feel less comfortable
speaking freely.
<bullet> Both scientists and journalists report that
restrictive media policies and practices have had the effect of
slowing down the process by which interview requests are
approved. As a result, the number of contacts between
government scientists and the news media has been greatly
reduced.
Highly publicized incidents of interference have led at least one
agency to implement reforms; in February 2006, NASA adopted a
scientific openness policy that affirms the right of open scientific
communication. Perhaps as a result, 61 percent of NASA survey
respondents said recent policies affirming scientific openness at their
agency have improved the environment for climate research. While
imperfect, the new NASA media policy stands as a model for the type of
action other federal agencies should take in reforming their media
policies.
The investigation also highlighted problems with the process by
which scientific findings are communicated to policy-makers in
Congress. One example, taken from internal documents provided to GAP by
agency staff, shows edits to official questions for the record by
political appointees, which change the meaning of the scientific
findings being presented.
Inadequate Funding: When adjusted for inflation, funding for
federal climate science research has declined since the mid-1990s. A
majority of survey respondents disagreed that the government has done a
good job funding climate science, and a large number of scientists
warned that inadequate levels of funding are harming the capacity of
researchers to make progress in understanding the causes and effects of
climate change. Budget cuts that have forced the cancellation of
crucial Earth observation satellite programs were of particular concern
to respondents.
Poor Morale: Morale among federal climate scientists is generally
poor. The UCS survey results suggest a correlation between the
deterioration in morale and the politicized environment surrounding
federal climate science in the present administration. One primary
danger of low morale and decreased funding is that federal agencies may
have more difficulty attracting and keeping the best scientists.
A large number of respondents reported decreasing job satisfaction
and a worsening environment for climate science in federal agencies:
<bullet> Two-thirds of respondents said that today's
environment for Federal Government climate research is worse
compared with five years ago (67 percent) and 10 years ago (64
percent). Among scientists at NASA, these numbers were higher
(79 percent and 77 percent, respectively).
<bullet> 45 percent said that their personal job satisfaction
has decreased over the past few years. At NASA, three in five
(61 percent) reported decreased job satisfaction.
<bullet> 36 percent of respondents from NASA, and 22 percent
of all respondents, reported that morale in their office was
``poor'' or ``extremely poor.'' Among NCAR respondents, only
seven percent reported such low levels of morale.
Recommendations
Congress should take action to prevent the worst effects of global
warming, ignore the disinformation campaign funded by ExxonMobil, and
take steps to protect federal climate scientists from political
interference. Let me address each of these areas.
Congressional Action on Global Warming
The true signal that ExxonMobil's disinformation campaign has been
defeated and federal climate scientists have regained a real voice will
come when Congress passes policies that meaningfully address the threat
of global warming. Most importantly, Congress should pass science based
legislation that gradually reduces global warming emissions to 80
percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In addition, Congress should enact
policies that spur the development of solution technologies and make
compliance with the economy-wide reductions more affordable. These
should include:
<bullet> Increased fuel economy standards for passenger
vehicles;
<bullet> A Renewable Electricity Standard requiring utilities
to obtain 20 percent of electricity from renewable energy
sources by 2020;
<bullet> A shift in government energy support and incentives
away from conventional coal, oil, and gas toward clean,
renewable energy sources; and,
<bullet> Integration of low carbon fuels into the supply chain
by ensuring that more gas stations sell biofuels such as E85
and flexible fuel vehicles comprise a greater percentage of the
vehicle fleet.
Ending ExxonMobil's Disinformation Campaign
The UCS ``Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air'' report, which was covered
in more than 300 media outlets, came on the heels of other criticism of
ExxonMobil's disinformation campaign. In September 2006, the Royal
Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, sent a letter to
ExxonMobil urging the company to stop funding the dozens of groups
spreading disinformation on global warming and also strongly criticized
the company's ``inaccurate and misleading'' public statements on global
warming. On October 27, 2006, Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and John D.
Rockefeller (D-WV) sent a letter to ExxonMobil urging the company to
stop funding climate contrarian groups. All three of these documents
have led to public outrage about the company's cynical campaign to
delay climate action.
In response to public pressure, ExxonMobil recently launched a
public relations campaign aimed at softening its image as a climate
skeptic. Although the company recently acknowledges the global warming
threat, and has announced that it has cut off funding for some of the
groups involved in the disinformation campaign, including the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, it has not yet pledged a complete
halt to its bankrolling of the scores of skeptic groups that
disseminate misleading information on global warming. In a letter
responding to Senators Snowe and Rockfeller, ExxonMobil claimed to have
no control over the activities of the groups it supports. If that's
true, ExxonMobil can certainly choose to stop funding any group that
disseminates misinformation and establish clear standards for groups
that receive funding in the future.
Even if ExxonMobil ceases to fund its disinformation campaign, much
of what it funded in the past will continue to have influence, and to
the degree it does, our nation will take longer to enact the needed
policies described above. Such delay would be costly in harm done to
natural and human socioeconomic systems that are sensitive to the
negative impacts of business-as-usual projections for future climate.
Therefore, I urge Members of Congress to draw the scientific
information needed to formulate wise policy responses to impending
climate change from bona fide scientific organizations and member
scientists who publish in the scientific literature, and to assiduously
avoid being influenced by the protestations of small but vocal groups
and individuals funded by ExxonMobil and other corporations and special
interests for the express purpose of casting doubt on a robust body of
climate science.
Protecting Federal Climate Scientists
The UCS-GAP ``Atmosphere of Pressure'' report brought to light
numerous ways in which U.S. federal climate science has been filtered,
suppressed, and manipulated in the last five years. Until this
political interference ends, the United States will not be able to
fully protect Americans and the world from the dangers of a warming
planet. Creating systems to ensure long-term independent and accessible
science will require the energies of the entire Federal Government. T
recommend the following reforms and actions:
<bullet> Congress must act to specifically protect the rights
of federal scientists to conduct their work and communicate
their findings without interference and protect scientists who
speak out when they see interference or suppression of science.
<bullet> The Federal Government must respect the
constitutional right of scientists to speak about any subject,
including policy-related matters and those outside their area
of expertise, so long as the scientists make it clear that they
do so in their private capacity, and such communications do not
unreasonably take from agency time and resources. Scientists
should also be made aware of these rights and ensure they are
exercised at their agencies.
<bullet> Ultimate decisions about the communication of federal
scientific information should lie with scientists themselves.
While non-scientists may be helpful with various aspects of
writing and communication, scientists must have a ``right of
last review'' on agency communications related to their
scientific research to ensure scientific accuracy has been
maintained.
<bullet> Pre-approval of media interviews with federal
scientists by public affairs officials should be eliminated.
Scientists should not be subject to restrictions on media
contacts beyond a policy of informing public affairs officials
in advance of an interview and summarizing the interaction for
them afterwards. Coordinating media requests with the public
affairs office is reasonable, but the practice of public
affairs officers being present at an interview, either
physically or by phone, can have a chilling effect on the free
flow of scientific information and should not serve as a
prerequisite for the approval of an interview. The UCS report
provides a Model Media Policy that can be used as an example
for federal agencies who wish to reform their policies and
practices regarding scientific freedom and openness.
<bullet> Federal agencies should clearly support the free
exchange of scientific information in all venues. They should
investigate and correct inappropriate policies, practices, and
incidents that threaten scientific integrity, determine how and
why problems have occurred, and make the necessary reforms to
prevent further incidents.
<bullet> Funding decisions regarding climate change programs
should be guided by scientific criteria, and must take into
account the importance of long-term, continual climate
observation programs and models. All branches of the government
must have access to independent scientific advice.
Conclusion
The actions of ExxonMobil-funded groups and federal political
appointees to distort, manipulate, and suppress climate science have
helped postpone meaningful U.S. action to protect future generations
from the worst consequences of global warming. The Federal Government
must commit to ensuring basic scientific freedoms and supporting
scientists in their endeavors to bring scientific results to the policy
arena, scientific fora, and the American people.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Attachment B
Selected Excerpts from UCS Climate Survey Essay Responses
The 40-question survey mailed by UCS to over 1,600 federal climate
scientists featured one essay question that allowed scientists to
provide a written narrative, and extra space for scientists to leave
additional comments. The following are excerpts from the essays
provided, divided into five topic areas: political interference in
climate science, scientific findings misrepresented, barriers to
communication, funding, and climate scientist are disheartened.
``The integrity of the U.S. Federal Government climate science could
best be improved by. . .''
I. Political Interference with Climate Science
Large numbers of federal climate scientists reported various types
of interference, both subtle and explicit:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
``Remembering that the civil service scientists and engineers
can and should be an unbiased reservoir of insights into
different questions with impacts across international economic
and cultural dividing lines. Politicizing and degrading the
integrity for which we are internationally known and respected
is a disservice to our country and a danger to the world. If we
can't be trusted, to give insights on global change and funded
to do so, who in the world will do it?''
``Keep politics out of science.''
``Administration needs to act on the best information, not try
to force the information to fit their desired action.''
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
``Removing the current atmosphere where scientists who report
findings truthfully may face consequences if they contradict
administration policies.''
``I have never seen or expected this degree of political
interference in scientific research. It's appalling and
unbelievable that it happens in the U.S.''
``Eliminating political pressure from influencing science
findings.''
``De-politicizing the science, especially at the highest
administrative levels of agencies. Protect the integrity of
scientists by letting them speak, and by respecting that.''
``Remove political pressures that try to make agencies support
the administration's agenda. Allow scientific agencies to
remain nonpolitical. Allow scientific results to be used as
scientific facts instead of political or policy statements.''
``Policy of zero interference in the scientific process.''
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
``The perception that. . .we (climate scientists) might find
and write [something that] might be considered controversial is
a strong one that comes down from management. It's not clear
that there's a real reason for it or what the consequences
would be. This perception should be actively discouraged from
the highest levels!''
``Keeping politics out of the scientific process. I believe
the line has been crossed between science informing public
policy and policy manipulating the science (and trying to
influence its outcome). I have personally experienced this
manipulation in the area of communicating the science many
times.''
Department of Energy
``Allowing scientists to work completely independently of
current administrative views on the subject.''
``No oversight of scientific quality by politicians. It should
be left to peer review and presentations of results in
scientific meetings.''
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
``A scientific report will now undergo three `policy' reviews
and two `peer' reviews prior to further peer-review journal
reviews. This will not only slow the reporting of results, but
the chances are that significant watering-down of results will
occur during the three `policy' reviews by non-specialists.''
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
``Keeping political employee appointments completely
independent of the scientific research, scientific publication,
and scientific communications processes.''
II. Scientific Findings Misrepresented
Federal climate scientists reported that their research findings
have been changed by non-scientists in ways that compromise accuracy:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
``Not censoring scientific results.''
``U.S. Federal Government climate science does not lack
integrity. Science assessments, summaries, policy papers
sometimes do lack integrity. The best way to improve them would
be to ensure they are written by qualified scientists, not by
political hacks.''
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
``It's not the climate science per se, but how it is spun and
censored by officials.''
``Hands off by policy/communications and non-scientific staff
on scientific reports. These reports should be subject to
scientific and independent peer review.''
Department of Energy
``Not having political appointees who have no formal training
in climate science looking over our shoulders. There should be
some minimum bar before they are appointed. Policy should be
based on sound science; results of science should not be
diluted on suited/adjusted to justify policy. This particular
Administration has gone beyond reasonable boundaries, on this
issue.''
National Center for Atmospheric Research
``The unedited presentation of findings to government panels
and to the public. It appears that funding organizations are
shifting priorities away from climate studies to other programs
deemed more important by the current administration.''
III. Barriers to Communication
Agency scientists are not free to communicate their research
findings to the media or the public:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
``As of March 2006, there was a marked change in NASA, and I
have spoken out freely on climate change, including a NASA-
approved press release. I believe scientists at other agencies
(e.g., NOAA) still have restrictions.''
``Allow direct and open communication between scientists and
the public without prior permission, clearance, chaperones,
handlers, etc.''
``Recently a Bush appointee to the position of Public
Information Officer attempted to muzzle Jim Hansen, Director of
GISS. . .the NASA Administrator made it clear that such
political meddling would not be tolerated. This was excellent
leadership at the top and set the tone for any lower echelons
that may not otherwise have been this strong. Michael Griffin
is a great improvement over his recent precedents.''
``Reduced public affairs interference, review, delay,
oversight.''
``Not having White House liaisons in science related PR
offices.''
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
``Scientists should be free to communicate with the media,
rather than having media contacts filtered by ``Public
Affairs'' officers. This should be official policy, not a
``wink and nod'' policy.''
``Removing all apparatchiks monitoring the controlling how
scientists communicate to the public.''
``Allowing us to interact openly with the public.''
``Less restrictions on publications and data output, more
universal support, less restrictive travel/visitor policies
(our honored guests are treated like criminals to even get in
the building).''
Department of Energy
``Not having political appointees tinker with science that is
best left to the experts. Particularly at NOAA where the
Administration has gagged free exchange of results.''
``More open discussion of issues, honest assessment of data
and results. The public does not know who to believe. Separate
the ``grey'' results/literature from solid peer reviewed
results and provide ``what is known and not known,'' not
opinions.''
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
``Allowing scientists to communicate directly to the public
and other scientists about critical significance of climate
change. In fact, informing the public regarding the truth of
this issue must be encouraged and rewarded.''
National Center for Atmospheric Research
``From what I've heard, NCAR is rare among research institutes
in that we are free to communicate our findings. This policy
needs to apply to all research institutes and all scientists
should be encouraged to communicate their results to the
public.''
``At one point, I specifically asked my division director if
there were any censorship policies at NCAR. He emphatically
stated that there were none and that if we were ever pressured
that we should contact him immediately and he would raise hell
to eliminate the pressure.''
IV. Inadequate Funding
Scientists reported that inadequate funding affects their ability
to do the research that is necessary and pertinent.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
``I believe that climate research at NASA is being undermined
by the current administration. This is accomplished not through
direct threats of intimidation, but through lack of funding.
Several years ago the funding focus [at NASA] was switched from
Earth Science to solar system exploration (Moon and Mars). I
believe this was done not for solar system exploration, but
rather to curtail climate research. The emphasis needs to be
switched back to Earth Science.''
``Problems with climate research in the Federal Government
mainly have to do with funding. Future funding at my agency is
uncertain. Future climate observational programs (crucial ones)
are threatened because of lack of funds. New accounting rules
at my agency require climate scientists to spend unreasonable
amounts of time writing proposals, which has reduced
productivity.''
``Funding for climate research is a factor of 5-10 below
critical mass to develop a designed climate observing system.''
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
``Include a dedicated long-term observing program with stable
funding support for about 30 more years. The current satellite
program does not meet climate research needs.''
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
``I have not worked directly on climate change since funding
was eliminated in my area. Other areas of much less importance
have been emphasized as a result. Which is a tragedy.''
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
``The U.S. Climate Change Science Program has not received
sufficient funding for needed observations, monitoring,
research, [and] data systems.''
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
``U.S. satellite programs are in severe jeopardy. The loss of
continuity in observational satellite data will impair progress
in climate science.''
V. Climate Scientists are Disheartened
While a large majority of respondents (88 percent) agreed with the
statement, ``U.S. Federal Government climate research is of generally
excellent quality,'' respondents reported decreasing job satisfaction
and a worsening environment for climate science in federal agencies:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
``The intrusion of politics into the field is making some (me
and others) consider change of field or career.''
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
``I am [close to] retirement and feel that I will no longer be
able to use my abilities to produce scientific information of
relevance to the American public. The last years of my career
are being squandered for political reasons. I do not think I
will be able to do any more new climate science before I
retire. My goal is to get out the results from past research.''
Department of Energy
``To watch this from another agency is so demoralizing. They
have virtually derailed the mission of providing environmental
services to the public and burnt billions. . .. Shocking
tracking record!''
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Dr. McCarthy. That was
admirably close to five minutes.
Mr. Maassarani.
STATEMENT OF MR. TAREK F. MAASSARANI, STAFF ATTORNEY,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
Mr. Maassarani. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of
the Subcommittee, I thank you for this opportunity to share the
Government Accountability Project investigation into the
suppression of scientific communication. The complete findings
can be found in the full investigative and synthesis report
entitled, Redacting the Science of Climate Change.
This report documents how certain government policies and
practices have increasingly restricted the flow of politically-
inconvenient scientific information the emerges from taxpayer-
funded climate change research. These restrictions have
affected the media's ability to report on the science,
decision-maker's capacity to respond with appropriate policies,
and the public's grasp of an environmental issue with profound
consequences for our future.
As lead investigator I conducted more than 40 interviews
with climate scientists and government officials representing
inside perspectives from numerous agencies. I reviewed
thousands of pages of documentation obtained from Freedom of
Information Act disclosures, as well as public and internal
agency sources. I also examined more than 100 published news
articles and Congressional documents.
The investigation identified policies and practices
requiring tight control of media communications, which resulted
in the delay and denial of media requests and press releases.
This considerably reduced scientists' opportunities to
communicate the results of their research to the public. In one
instance a national oceananic and atmospheric administration
scientist complained that the prior rate of one media request
every two to three weeks had slowed to one every two to three
months as a result of new pre-approval requirements. In another
instance a NASA scientist witnessed his press release on
climate change edited to minimize its media impact before it
was approved. In yet another instance a scientist described how
on three separate occasions what he referred to as a minder,
flew from Washington, D.C., to Hawaii and Boulder to monitor
his interviews. With such editing, denials, delays, and
monitoring, some scientists have given up trying to issue press
releases or even pursue media contacts.
The restrictions referred to in our report have increased
steadily, albeit unevenly over time, often in response to
upcoming elections, the publication of controversial studies,
hurricane seasons, and most notably, the landfall of Hurricane
Katrina. Furthermore, restrictive policies and practices are
characterized by internal inconsistencies and a lack of
transparency about where decisions to restrict communications
are being made, according to what criteria, and why.
It appears that signals from executive offices such as the
Council on Environmental Quality are channeled to political
appointees and politically-aligned civil servants at lower-
level press and policy offices. These directives largely take
place off the record, frequently deviating from the written
guidelines, and involving individuals with few scientific
qualifications. Whether these restrictive communication
policies and practices have caused overt and well-publicized
incidents or have acted by more subtle processes, their effect
has been to misrepresent and under-represent the scientific
knowledge generated by federal climate science agencies.
In some case the policies and practices represent
institutionalized constitutional and statutory infringements of
federal employees' free speech and whistleblower rights. In
most cases they undermine the government's inherent obligation
to freely disseminate the results of publicly-funded research.
To address the problems the Government Accountability
Project recommends that Congress enact legislation to insure
federal free speech rights and extend whistleblower
protections. GAP lauds H.R. 985 recently passed by the House
and urges it to be expanded to cover all employees conducting
federally-funded scientific, technical, or other professional
research.
The report also presents an extensive set of
recommendations for agencies to insure the integrity of media,
Congressional, professional, and public communications.
Congress should consider what legislative action is needed to
help agencies in this regard.
Finally, GAP asked Congress to strengthen its essential
oversight functions with regard to the integrity of
communications about scientific research and to insure that
objective and independent science is the basis for policy-
making.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maassarani follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tarek F. Maassarani
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Subcommittee. I thank
you for the opportunity to share the findings of my investigative
report. Until recently, I served as full-time staff attorney and
investigator for the Government Accountability Project, the Nation's
leading whistleblower defense and advocacy organization. In February
2006, prompted by the well-publicized concerns of Dr. James Hansen and
Rick Piltz, GAP initiated an in-depth investigation to determine the
extent of political interference with federal climate research and the
dissemination of scientific information.
The investigation found no incidents of direct interference with
climate change research. Instead, unduly restrictive policies and
practices were found to occur largely in the communication of
``sensitive'' scientific information to the media, the public, and
Congress. The effect of these restrictive communications policies and
practices has been to misrepresent and under-represent the taxpayer-
funded scientific knowledge generated by federal climate science
agencies and programs. The bottom line is, we need the government to be
stimulating, not undermining, an informed public debate on important
scientific subjects, including climate change. We have included for
your consideration a number of recommendations for the Administration
and the Congress that would help achieve this goal.
The GAP Investigation
The GAP investigation focused primarily on the effects of
restrictive Federal Government policies and practices, especially those
applied to control communications from particular employees on
``sensitive'' aspects of climate science. The investigation also
addressed government efforts to control the communication of scientific
climate-related information to Congress, the scientific community, and
the public. The complete findings have been incorporated into my
investigative and synthesis report, Redacting the Science of Climate
Change.
As lead investigator, I conducted more than 40 interviews with
climate scientists, communications officers, agency and program
officials, and journalists. These sources--both named and
confidential--represented inside perspectives from the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), Climate Change Science Program (CCSP),
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), United States Geological Survey,
and National Center for Atmospheric Research, as well as local,
national, and international media.
In addition to interviews, I have reviewed thousands of pages of
documentation obtained from Freedom of Information Act disclosures, as
well as public and internal agency sources. I also reviewed more than
100 published news articles and more than three dozen congressional
documents including reports, testimonies, and questions for the record.
Overview
A perception of inappropriate political interference is widespread
among employees of the federal climate science agencies and programs,
as well as among journalists from national, mainstream outlets who
cover their research. This perception is substantiated by evidence from
inside sources, scientists' personal testimonies, journalists, and
document disclosures.
My report demonstrates how policies and practices have increasingly
restricted the flow of scientific information emerging from publicly-
funded climate change research. This has affected the media's ability
to report on the science, public officials' capacity to respond with
appropriate policies, and the public's grasp of an environmental issue
with profound consequences for our future.
The investigation found no incidents of direct interference with
conducting climate change research. Instead, unduly restrictive
policies and practices were found that affected the communication of
``sensitive'' scientific information to the media, the public, and
Congress. In this context, the term ``sensitive scientific
information'' is meant to signify science that is seen as leading to
conclusions that call into question existing policy positions or
objectives and includes, for example, some of the research dealing with
the effects of climate change or greenhouse gases on hurricanes, sea
levels, ice sheets, glaciers, marine life, polar bears, the water
supply, and human society.
Media Communications
A review of the media policies and agency practices controlling the
communication of scientific information at NASA, NOAA, and other
agencies, demonstrated the following:
<bullet> Agency media policies and practices required
scientists to obtain pre-approval from public affairs
headquarters following an initial media request before
proceeding with an interview. Likewise, press releases and
press conferences also required high-level clearance.
<bullet> At times, media policies and practices mandated that
scientists forward all relevant requests to a press officer who
would then route the interview to other scientists or restrict
the topics that could be discussed.
<bullet> Agency directives asked scientists to provide
anticipated media questions and their expected answers prior to
the interview.
<bullet> Finally, press officers frequently monitored
interviews over conference call or in person. In one instance,
a press officer flew out on two separate occasions from
Washington, DC, to Hawaii, then Boulder, to monitor two
interviews with one scientist.
As a result, scientists lost a considerable number of opportunities
to communicate the results of their research to the public due to delay
or denial of interviews and/or press releases held up during a
clearance process. In one instance, a NOAA scientist complained that
the prior rate of one media request every two to three weeks had slowed
to one every two to three months as a result of new pre-approval
requirements. In another instance, a NASA scientist witnessed his press
release on climate change edited to minimize its media impact before it
was approved. With such denials, or delays of more than two-weeks, some
scientists have given up trying to release them. Others feel
discouraged from pursuing media contacts.
The investigation has demonstrated that these restrictive policies
and practices have increased steadily, albeit unevenly, over time. In
2001, there were only a few isolated instances of mandatory pre-
approval at NOAA, while most labs enjoyed a simple ``notice and recap''
policy in which only prior notification of public affairs and a
subsequent follow-up are required. Similarly, NASA's policy did not
require pre-approval. At NOAA, public affairs offices then implemented
clearance requirements following the release of a hurricane season
outlook in 2002 and a report by Ocean Commission in 2004. In June 2004,
NOAA issued a written media policy that codified a number of these
prior practices. Although some NOAA laboratories continued to operate
largely by ``notice and recap,'' pre-approval was required for certain
``hot button'' issues and scientists, such as one researcher who had
recently published his findings from a modeling study of the
relationship between hurricanes and climate change. Public affairs
required his interviews to be monitored.
In the weeks leading up to the 2004 presidential election, a
regional EPA office issued a pre-approval directive and NASA scientists
experienced numerous ``disappearances'' of press releases. In 2005, a
year of record-setting global temperatures, politically-appointed
senior management at NASA public affairs headquarters implemented an
unwritten practice of requiring their special pre-approval for media
requests and press releases concerning ``warming,'' ``melting,'' or
``glaciers.'' A mid-level press officer recalls these officials
conferring with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
and pressuring him to suppress the media communications under the
pretext of some ``excuse.''
At NOAA, a reminder of the media policy was again disseminated to
certain agency laboratories at the start of the 2005 hurricane season
and then again after the publication of a controversial study linking
increased hurricanes activity and climate change. NOAA first widely
publicized its media policy throughout its research branches following
Hurricane Katrina. At around this time, documents began to reveal that
media inquiries were required to obtain clearance from the Department
of Commerce and the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Media
contacts with a NOAA researcher that disputed a connection between
hurricanes and climate change were given preference over those with
another researcher whose models suggested a link. NOAA also posted an
article on its website claiming an agency-wide consensus against the
link.
In early January of 2006, NOAA issued implementation protocols for
the 2004 media policy, as well as a press release review process flow
sheet. The implementation protocols explicitly require pre-approval for
press releases and the drafting of prospective answers to anticipated
questions, as well as routing for media requests. The press release
flow sheet included the Department of Commerce in its 13-stage review
process. In June 2006, an EPA scientist studying sea level rise and
coastal erosion was required to route all media requests to his public
affairs office.
Public and Congressional Communications
Interference with scientific communications to the public and
Congress included inappropriate editing, delay, and suppression of
reports and other printed and online material. For example, following
its 2001 publication, senior officials prohibited all references to the
CCSP's congressionally-mandated National Assessment of the Potential
Consequences of Climate Variability and Change from websites,
discussions, and subsequent assessment reports. The Administration
similarly disowned the 2002 U.S. Climate Action Report, prepared by the
EPA as a requirement of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change.
In September 2002, the Administration removed a section on climate
change from the EPA's annual air pollution report, even though the
topic had been discussed in the report in each of the preceding five
years. Then in June 2003, the EPA removed an entire chapter on climate
change after the White House had tried to so substantially alter its
contents that leaving it in would compromise the credibility of the
agency.
Similarly for websites, the EPA's Global Warming website, actively
updated prior to 2002, saw little if any activity for nearly four
years. At about the same time that the EPA website was revived, the
State Department website was altered to hide much of its climate-
related materials. Although the Communications Interagency Working
Group CCSP is mandated to prepare numerous informational products for
the public on climate change research, its website has uploaded only a
handful of materials since 2004.
Conclusions
Political interference is top-down. Directives and signals from
executive offices such as the Council on Environmental Quality, the
Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy are channeled through political appointees and
younger politically-aligned career civil servants at lower-level press
and policy offices. These channels of communications largely take place
off the record, frequently deviating from written policy guidelines and
involving individuals with few scientific qualifications. Whereas low-
level agency and program support staff are typically sympathetic to the
scientists and their science, as one scientist noted, ``the closer you
get to Washington, the more hostile [they are to the science].'' Senior
managers have been aware of the perception and incidents of
interference longer than they have attempted to address them. Often,
they may be conforming to pressures from above to downplay politically-
inconvenient science.
The restrictive communications policies and practices discussed
here are largely characterized by internal inconsistencies, ambiguity,
and a lack of transparency. They send a chilling signal to federal
employees, including scientists and public affairs officers, that
further freeze the flow of information.
Whether these restrictive communications policies and practices
have precipitated overt and, often, well-publicized incidents or have
acted by more subtle processes, their effect has been to misrepresent
and under-represent the taxpayer-funded scientific knowledge generated
by federal climate science agencies and programs. In some cases, the
policies and practices constitute systematic, institutionalized
constitutional and statutory infringements of the federal climate
science employees' free speech and whistleblower rights. In most cases,
the policies and practices undermine the government's inherent
obligation to disseminate the results of publicly-funded research.
Increased congressional and media attention on political
suppression and interference with climate science communication has led
to statements of commitment to scientific openness by Administration
officials and a loosening of communication policies and their
application. This pressure has led to actual or anticipated reforms, as
well as improved morale, at NASA and NOAA, though institutional
problems and policy weaknesses remain (See, e.g., GAP's memorandum to
NASA scientists, enclosed as Attachment 1). Even in rhetoric, the
reform movement has largely missed ongoing problems at EPA and CCSP.
Recommendations
GAP recommends that the executive branch and all federal agencies
supporting climate change research:
<bullet> Implement a clear and transparent ``notice and
recap'' media policy in which only a prior notification to
public affairs and a subsequent follow-up are required.
Correspondingly, eliminate mandatory pre-approval for media
contacts, selective routing of media requests, drafting of
anticipated questions and answers by scientists prior to
interviews, and monitoring of media communications.
<bullet> Develop a transparent communications policy at the
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and streamline the
approval process for CCSP products and communications.
<bullet> Reaffirm and educate federal employees about their
right to speak on any subject so long as they make clear that
they are expressing their personal views and do not use
government time and resources--with the important proviso that
no restrictions apply when federal employees are exercising
their whistleblower rights to disclose unclassified information
that is reasonably believed to evidence illegality, gross
waste, gross mismanagement, abuse of power, or substantial and
specific danger to public health or safety.
<bullet> Bring media policies into compliance with the Anti-
Gag Statute, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Lloyd-
Lafollette Act for communications with Congress, and related
provisions.
<bullet> Ensure the timely and pro-active coordination of
press releases and media contacts so as to promote rather than
limit the flow of information.
<bullet> Ensure that content editing and scientific quality
control remain with qualified scientists and the peer-review
process.
<bullet> Reaffirm and educate federal employees on their right
to review any final draft that is to be published under their
name or that substantially references their research.
<bullet> Establish accountability procedures that increase
transparency and provide for internal reporting of undue
interference with science.
<bullet> Investigate and correct inappropriate policies,
practices, and incidents such as those described in this
report.
GAP recommends that Congress:
<bullet> Enact legislation that extends federal free speech
and whistleblower rights to all employees conducting federally-
funded scientific, technical, or other professional research,
whether the employee is part of the civil service, a
contractor, grant recipient, or receives taxpayer support in
any other manner.
<bullet> Ensure that objective and independent science is the
basis for policy-making.
<bullet> Strengthen its essential oversight functions with
regard to the integrity of communications about scientific
research.
MEMORANDUM
To: Climate Scientists
From: Government Accountability Project
Re: Analysis of NASA's Recently Released Media Policy
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is issuing advisory
comments on NASA's new media policy that it released yesterday, March
30. The new policy came in response to public outcry over NASA's
suppression of climate science research inconsistent with the Bush
Administration's political agenda. NASA is touting the development as a
free-speech breakthrough for agency scientists.
GAP identified the areas in which the new policy is an improvement:
<bullet> NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's reassuring
rhetoric is of symbolic value, demonstrating official respect
for scientific freedom.
<bullet> The new media policy does not cover scientific
reports, web postings, or professional dialogue such as at
conferences, allowing scientists to share information with
their colleagues without going through public affairs political
appointees.
<bullet> The policy officially recognizes the free speech
right for scientists to express their ``personal views'' when
they make clear that their statements are not being made on
behalf of NASA.
However, in six critical areas the new policy falls short of
genuine scientific freedom and accountability, and potentially
undermines the positive guarantees:
<bullet> While recognizing the existence of a ``personal
views'' exception, the policy doesn't announce the
circumstances when that right cancels out conflicting
restrictions, which are phrased in absolute terms applying to
contexts such as ``any activities'' with significant media
potential. This leaves a cloud of uncertainty that translates
into a chilling effect for scientists.
<bullet> The policy fails to comply with the legally-mandated
requirements of the Anti-Gag Statute to explicitly include
notice that the Whistleblower Protection Act and Lloyd-
Lafollette Act (for congressional communications) limit and
supersede its restrictions.
<bullet> The policy institutionalizes prior restraint
censorship through ``review and clearance by appropriate
officials'' for ``all NASA employees'' involved in ``preparing
and issuing'' public information. This means that scientists
can be censored and will need advance permission from the
``appropriate'' official before anything can be released.
<bullet> The policy defies the WPA by requiring prior approval
for all whistleblower disclosures that are ``Sensitive But
Unclassified'' (SBU). The legal definition of SBU is broad and
vague, to the point that it can be interpreted to sweep in
virtually anything. The WPA only permits that restriction for
classified documents or those whose public release is
specifically banned by statute.
<bullet> The policy bans employees' free speech and WPA rights
to make anonymous disclosures, requiring them to work with NASA
public affairs ``prior to releasing information'' or ``engaging
in any activities or events. . .that have the potential to
generate significant media or public interest or inquiry.''
<bullet> The policy gives NASA the power to control the timing
of all disclosures, which means scientists can be gagged until
the information is dated and the need for the public to know
about critical scientific findings has passed.
In December of last year, NASA climatologist Dr. James Hansen was
threatened with ``dire consequences'' by a political appointee for
statements he made about the consequences of climate change. According
to GAP's legal director, Tom Devine, ``Under this so-called reform, Dr.
Hansen would still be in danger of `dire consequences' for sharing his
research, although that threat is what sparked the new policy in the
first place. The new policy violates the Whistleblower Protection Act,
the Anti-Gag Statute, and the law protecting communications with
Congress, the Lloyd-Lafollette Act. The loopholes are not innocent
mistakes or oversights. GAP extensively briefed the agency lawyer on
these requirements, who insisted he understood them fully. NASA is
intentionally defying the good government anti-secrecy laws.''
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Maassarani. Mr. Kueter.
STATEMENT OF MR. JEFF KUETER, PRESIDENT, GEORGE C. MARSHALL
INSTITUTE
Mr. Kueter. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I am
Jeff Kueter, President of the George Marshall Institute, a non-
profit organization focused on improving the comprehension of
important scientific and technical issues by the public, the
media, and policy-makers. We study environmental and national
security topics, with a particular emphasis on climate change,
ballistic missile defense, and space security.
I am here today because of our concern about the character
of the climate change debate and efforts to discredit the
reputation of people who do not share the view that we face an
impending climate crisis. These efforts are inconsistent with
the principles of science, sound policy-making, and the
advancement of knowledge, as well as our principles of free
speech and association. Healthy debate is an engine for
progress and change.
Our climate is a complex, chaotic system. We have learned a
great deal about how it operates but our knowledge is far from
complete. Global temperatures have increased over the past 50
or 100 years, human activities contribute to that warming, and
actions to adjust that legitimate risk are appropriate.
Nevertheless, the inter-governmental panel on climate change in
the National Academy of Sciences document many important gaps
in our understanding of critical climate processes and
identifies significant gaps in the observational data. The
current debate is not over what is scientific fact. It is over
interpretations of analyses, the quality of data, professional
judgments, and the confidence that can be placed in climate
models. That the IPCC for example, reached one conclusion does
not make that a fact. Reasonable people can reach different
conclusions about the extent of human influence on climate and
the range of potential future impacts as the National Academy
has done, as well as the range of public policy choices.
Discussing these different interpretations is not misleading
the public, nor is it providing inaccurate impressions as has
been alleged. To charge otherwise is tantamount to saying that
the prevailing views should never be challenged. The history of
science is replete with examples where the prevailing view was
overtaken by new information. Significant uncertainty is not an
obstacle to action, it is a signal for caution and flexibility.
In considering the current debate, several other factors
deserve recognition. First, all the participants in policy-
making have preferences, interests, and objectives that color
the interpretation of often-tentative scientific results.
Conclusions drawn from incomplete science are more a reflection
of individual preferences than the weight of scientific
evidence. All participants in the climate debate use the media
to frame issues in ways that are favorable to their preferred
positions, but the media is criticized for including the views
of so-called skeptics and their reporting. The media's role is
to inform, not to judge by censoring. Reporters should not be
criticized for including diverse views. Instead, critical
analyses of all sides should be encouraged. Claims that this
confuses rather than informs presumes a certainty of foresight
that simply does not exist.
Secondly, alleged political interference is claimed to be
unique. Our book, Politicizing Science, documents numerous
examples of the damaging intersection of science and politics.
Further, those who claim the current situation is somehow
different should become familiar with the story of Dr. Will
Happer, the Marshall Institute's Chairman. Early in the
Clinton-Gore Administration Dr. Happer, then head of the
Department of Energy's Office of Science, questioned the Vice
President's views on climate change and ozone depletion.
Despite his scientific credentials, he was summarily dismissed
at Gore's request.
Third, in today's debate evidence of a financial tie is
often sufficient to condemn without proof that views, opinions,
or conclusions were altered in any way. Arguments about funding
bias rest on the assumption that funders demand results that
are solely consistent with their views and interests. It also
assumes that integrity and objectivity are always for sale.
Unfortunately, this claim is frequently repeated without
rigorous evaluation or evidence to support it.
Let me be clear. No grant to the Institute is contingent on
support for a specific point of view or conclusion. Our views
on climate change long predate any support by any corporate
entity. Nevertheless, the Institute is cited as an example of
an institution propagating misinformation and confusion at the
behest of corporate support. The Union of Concerned Scientists'
January, 2007, report and its accompanying press release single
us out for close scrutiny. In its references to the Institute,
the UCS makes basic factual errors and fails to deal with, and
fails to challenge the substance of our work, and my written
testimony documents those areas in detail.
Often overlooked in this discussion is the critical
dependence of the American scientific enterprise on federal
funding. The pursuit of that funding can generate unwelcome
pressures to conform to prevailing beliefs. Studies of
organizations and bureaucracy revealed the existence of
distinct agendas and preferences that guide actions, and in the
case of grant-making organizations, the relationships that they
enter into.
If funding alone invariably affects findings and opinions,
then what should we make of the significantly-greater amount
spent by foundations and the Federal Government? For the period
2000, 2002, private foundations conservatively spent 35 to $50
million each year on climate-related projects. Such projects
accounted for over 25 percent of the three-year total reported
grants and contributions received by 10 of the top 20
institutions. At the same time the Federal Government provides
two to $4 million each year for climate change research and
related environmental sciences. In the field of atmospheric
sciences, for example, federally-funded R&D accounts for more
than 80 percent of the total expenditures for nearly one-half
of the top 30 institutions in the five-year period we surveyed.
Who funds an organization or individual scientist or who
they associate with is less relevant than the quality of their
work. This point was made crystal clear more than a decade ago
when Ted Koppel rejected Vice President Gore's efforts to
discredit climate scientists on his program, Night Line. Koppel
observed, ``There is some irony in the fact that Vice President
Gore is resorting to political means to achieve what should
ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis. The issues
of global warming and ozone depletion are undeniably important,
but the issues have to be debated and settled on scientific
grounds, not politics.'' There is nothing new about major
institutions seeking to influence science to their own ends.
The measure of good science is neither the politics of the
scientist nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It
is the immersion of hypotheses into the acid of truth. That is
the hard way to do it, but it is the only way that works. That
philosophy should guide this debate today.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kueter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeff Kueter
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee,
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Jeff
Kueter, President of the George C. Marshall Institute. The George
Marshall Institute (GMI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded
in 1984, focused on how science is used in making public policy. The
Institute's analyses are designed to improve the comprehension of the
public, the media, and policy-makers of important scientific and
technical issues and help them distinguish between opinion and
scientific fact so that decisions on public policy issues can be based
on solid, factual information, rather than opinion or unproven
hypotheses. We publish reports and host roundtables and workshops. Our
activities focus on environmental and national security topics, with a
particular emphasis on ballistic missile defense and space security.
With respect to climate change and its public policy ramifications,
the Institute's position, held for nearly 20 years, is that
distinguishing human influence from natural variability is not
sufficiently understood and that many uncertainties about critical
climate processes require resolution before an adequate understanding
is established for projecting future climate changes. Statements that
greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of
human activity, that they contribute to warming, that the temperature
has increased in the past 50 and 100 years and that humans influence
climate only tell us the obvious.\1\ The plain facts are that we do not
know how much human activity is influencing the climate and cannot know
what temperature or climate will be 50 or 100 years from now. The
Marshall Institute has long held the position that climate policy
should be related to our state of knowledge. We have documented policy
actions that satisfy that standard.\2\ However, many proposed actions
based on the belief of an impending climate catastrophe are not
consistent with our state of knowledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council, Climate Change Science: An Analysis
of Some Key Questions. (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,
2001); Committee on Global Change Research, National Research Council,
Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade
(National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 1999), 127-129; J.T.
Houghton et al., Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis;
Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press, 2001), 698; James Schlesinger et al., Climate Science
and Policy: Making the Connection (Washington, D.C.: George Marshall
Institute, 2001); and William O'Keefe and Jeff Kueter, Climate Models:
A Primer (Washington, D.C.: George Marshall Institute, 2005).
\2\ James Schlesinger and Robert Sproull, Climate Science and
Policy: Making the Connection (Washington, D.C.: George Marshall
Institute, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Censorship, the Pursuit of Consensus, and Misperceptions About Climate
Science
It is, indeed, unfortunate that we are here today discussing calls
to effectively silence debate on climate science. The censorship of
voices that challenge and provoke is antithetical to liberty and
contrary to the traditions and values of free societies. That such
calls are now coming from venerable scientific societies, such as
Britain's Royal Society,\3\ and U.S. public policy institutes is
disturbing and should raise concerns worldwide about the intentions of
those seeking to silence honest debate and discussion of our most
challenging environmental issue--climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Bob Ward, ``Royal Society Letter to Nick Thomas, Esso UK
Limited,'' September 4, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The foundation of science, as well as its contributions to the
betterment of mankind, is based on skepticism and debate. Schools teach
that science is the clash of ideas, sharpened by data and observation,
and subject to revision and reversal. Political discourse rests on the
principle that all voices have the right to be heard and that any
person is free to associate with whomever they so choose. Science
demands those freedoms and scientists ought to embrace them.
The effort to promote and assert a `consensus' on climate change
science subverts the basic principles of science and is reaching the
point where the very freedoms on which science depends are now in
jeopardy--not through action of government but by scientists
themselves.
Yet, a careful and thoughtful examination of this issue plainly
reveals that the debate is not about science. It is about different
interpretations of studies and data when different assumptions and
models are used. There is a major distinction between interpretation of
data and established, verifiable facts. Much of what is put forward as
fact are interpretations of data and the projections of climate models
which have not been scientifically validated and which are driven more
by assumptions than extensive observational data and measurements. In a
free society, policy-makers and the public are free to judge such
interpretations and the weight of evidence that supports them.
It is suggested that the guarded language of serious scientific
dialogue is being mischaracterized as vagueness and uncertainty as part
of an intentional campaign to misguide the public. In fact, the drive
to end discussion on climate change is a mischaracterization of what
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its Third
Assessment Report about uncertainties, as well as statements from the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). As the IPCC, the NAS, and the U.S.
Climate Science Strategic Plan, which has been endorsed by the NAS,
clearly demonstrate, there are many critical uncertainties in our
understanding of the climate system. Until these uncertainties are
reduced and our understanding of the climate system is greater,
reasonable people and organizations can reach different conclusions
about the extent of human influence on climate and potential future
impacts. It is puzzling, therefore, that the American public should be
told that there is nothing more to know about the human relationship
with climate.
For example, in addressing the effect of human activities, a
National Research Council (NRC) review reveals numerous qualifications
and assumptions:
``Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural
variability inherent in the climate record and the
uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing
agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between
the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the
observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be
unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the
observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability
as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage,
but it does not constitute proof of one because the model
simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the
decadal to century time scale.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research
Council, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
(Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, 2001), 17.
There is little question that human activities, activities which
raise people from poverty, allow rising living standards and improve
human society, have had an influence on the climate. The question is to
what extent and how strongly. As the quote above shows, this is not a
settled matter.
Further, the Executive Summary of Working Group I, Chapter 12 of
the IPCC's Third Assessment Report contains the following lengthy
statement about uncertainties:
``A number of important uncertainties remain. These include:
<bullet> Discrepancies between the vertical profile of
temperature change in the troposphere seen in
observations and models. These have been reduced as
more realistic forcing histories have been used in
models, although not fully resolved. Also, differences
between observed surface and lower-tropospheric trends
over the last two decades cannot be fully reproduced by
model simulations.
<bullet> Large uncertainties in estimates of internal
climate variability from models and observations,
though as noted above, these are unlikely (bordering on
very unlikely) to be large enough to nullify the claim
that a detectable climate change has taken place.
<bullet> Considerable uncertainty in the
reconstruction of solar and volcanic forcing which are
based on proxy or limited observational data for all
but the last two decades. Detection of the influence of
greenhouse gases on climate appears to be robust to
possible amplification of the solar forcing by ozone/
solar or solar/cloud interactions, provided these do
not alter the pattern or time dependence of the
response to solar forcing. Amplification of the solar
signal by these processes, which are not yet included
in models, remains speculative.
<bullet> Large uncertainties in anthropogenic forcing
are associated with the effects of aerosols. The
effects of some anthropogenic factors, including
organic carbon, black carbon, biomass aerosols, and
changes in land use, have not been included in
detection and attribution studies. Estimates of the
size and geographic pattern of the effects of these
forcing vary considerably, although individually their
global effects are estimated to be relatively small.
<bullet> Large differences in the response of
different models to the same forcing. These
differences, which are often greater that the
difference in response in the same model with and
without aerosol effects, highlight the large
uncertainties in climate change prediction and the need
to quantify uncertainty and reduce it through better
observational data sets and model improvement.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Houghton et al., Climate Change 2001, http://www.grida.no/
climate/ipcc<INF>-</INF>tar/wg1/442.htm.
There is nothing in our ongoing review of the new IPCC assessment
to suggest major changes in these uncertainties.
The referenced uncertainties are important in considering both the
detection and attribution of climate change. Detection of climate
change is the ability to say, with some degree of confidence, that the
climate has changed. Attribution of climate change is the ability to
say, with some degree of confidence, why the climate has changed. There
is little question that in many parts of the world there has been a
detectable change in climate in the last century. The IPCC authors are
correct in saying that this change can be identified despite the large
uncertainties in estimates of internal variability. However,
attribution is a more difficult problem, and the high level of
uncertainty gives us reason to question the certainty of the IPCC's
conclusion.
In summarizing their review of the state of science, the National
Research Council used highly qualified and nuanced language which
further supports our position that the question of human attribution is
far from settled. The NRC stated:
``The changes observed over the last several decades are
likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out
that some significant part of these changes is also a
reflection of natural variability. . .. Because there is
considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the
climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of
greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the
magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and
subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ National Research Council, Climate Change Science, 1.
If anything, the prevailing view is that we are not able to answer
many significant questions about climate change and, at this point, the
evidence available is ``suggestive'' but does not ``constitute proof.''
It is important to recognize that these statements are solely the
product of the scientists who participated in the process and those
representatives of government assigned to produce the summary reports.
Scientists have declined to participate in the process, citing its
overt biases or unwillingness to commit the time and effort demanded.
The failure to give adequate recognition to uncertainty and to
reasonable interpretations of its impact on climate models and public
policy contributes greatly to the contentiousness in the current
debate. Further, expert analytical judgments are subjective and
tentative. As the recent debate over the paleoclimate temperature
history has plainly revealed, analytical studies are subject to
numerous and sometimes substantial questions that alter their
conclusions significantly. Expert judgment is not science and neither
is the output of models that have been calibrated but not validated.
The fact that a range of possible climate futures result from running a
single scenario through the models relied on by the IPCC make it clear
that the science is not settled and that there is room for differences
of opinion and debate.
Nevertheless, as is shown, the statements themselves detail
numerous significant uncertainties. That the participants in the IPCC,
for example, reached one conclusion does not make that a fact. Fair
minded people can reach other conclusions, as the National Research
Council did when it concluded that ``current estimates of the magnitude
of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future
adjustments (either upward or downward).''
Providing a different interpretation about available data and
understanding is not misleading the public nor is it providing
inaccurate or misleading impressions. To charge otherwise is tantamount
to saying that a prevailing view should never be challenged. The
history of science is replete with examples of where the prevailing
view was overtaken by new information. We once believed that Pluto was
a planet and generations learned of it in that context. Yet, with the
expansion of knowledge and sophistication of techniques, we learned
that we were wrong and now Pluto is no longer a planet. Eugenics was
once supported by the best minds in the Nation before persistence
discredited it. Lysenkoism severely damaged Russian agriculture and did
great damage to the fields of biology and genetics before it was
rejected.
Expressions of doubt--skepticism--about aspects of climate science
and projections of future impacts are claimed by some to hinder sound
policy. Significant uncertainty is not an obstacle to action. It is a
signal for caution and flexibility.
Politics and Science: A Permanently Politicized Relationship?
Politics and science are intrinsically related. As scientific and
technical matters have become more influential on matters of public
policy and the financing of the scientific enterprise become dependent
on the Federal Government, there are strong pressures exerted on
science and scientists. All the participants in policy-making--
politicians, bureaucracies, public policy institutes, industry, the
media, and scientists--have their own preferences, interests, and
objectives. These decidedly different views and preferences color the
interpretation of often tentative scientific results and the
conclusions drawn about the science may be more a reflection of the
preferences of the viewer than the science.
Some politicians are inclined to focus on scientific results that
support their policy preferences. Similarly, some scientists tailor
their research and slant interpretations as a way to curry favor, gain
funding, and enhance recognition of their work. Most do not engage in
such behaviors and instead act honestly and with integrity.
Scientists, politicians, and public policy institutes regularly use
the media to frame public policy issues in ways that are favorable to
their preferred positions. While some see this as informing the public,
it can be nothing more than clear manipulation. This tactic is
effective because of what the late historian Daniel Boorstin saw as a
growing gap between what an informed citizen can know and should
know.\7\ Information overload and the trend toward ``sound bites'' have
produced circumstances where citizens have lost their capacity for
skepticism. Reality often is now measured against created images
instead of the reverse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Daniel Boorstin, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America
(New York: Harper & Row, 1964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The media is also criticized for including the views of the so-
called skeptics in their reporting. The media's role, of course, is to
provide information to the public. Reporters should not be criticized
for including diverse views in their work.
In today's highly charged environment of climate change policy, it
is claimed that the political interference with climate scientists is
unique. It is alleged that federal scientists are not free to speak
their minds and are subject to oversight by political appointees. The
situation is neither unique nor exclusive to one political party. Our
book, Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policy-Making, documents
numerous past examples of where science and politics intersected with
damaging impacts on science and negative public policy outcomes.\8\
Further, those who believe the current situation is unique should make
themselves familiar with the story of Dr. Will Happer. As told by
Happer in Politicizing Science and widely reported at the time of its
occurrence, in the early months of the Clinton-Gore Administration, Dr.
Happer, then head of the Department of Energy's Office of Science,
questioned the Vice President's views on climate change and ozone
depletion. Despite his scientific credentials, he was summarily
dismissed at Gore's direction.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Michael Gough, ed., Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of
Policy-Making (Palo Alto, CA: Hoover Institute Press, 2003).
\9\ William Happer, ``Harmful Politicization of Science'' in Gough,
Politicizing Science, 45-56; Holman Jenkins, ``Al Gore Leads a Purge,''
Wall Street Journal, May 25, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, efforts are often made to impugn the credibility of those
engaged in the debate through assertions that their views are a product
of financial relationships rather than sincerely held beliefs or
objective research. All too frequently evidence of a financial tie is
sufficient to condemn, without proof that the tie altered the views,
opinions, or conclusions in any way. The public discourse suffers as
arguments are not explored in sufficient detail.
Often overlooked or ignored in such discussions is the fact that
the American scientific enterprise is critically dependent on funding
from the Federal Government. Without public funds, the burgeoning
enterprise of universities and researchers would contract dramatically.
While few would dispute the value of the contributions made by the
government-supported scientific enterprise, some facets of government
financing of science are troublesome.\10\ Public funding can generate
unwelcome pressures on scientists to conform to prevailing beliefs.
Public funding is also said to breed alarmism and facilitate distortion
in public discourse.\11\ Studies of organizations and bureaucracies
demonstrate that, over time, institutions devise strategies to
perpetuate their continued existence and encourage their expansion.
Organizations have agendas and preferences and these guide the actions
they take and, in the case of a grant making organization, the
relationships they enter into. Bureaucratic organizations charged with
distributing public resources exert power and influence over their
environment as they have considerable autonomy within the policy-making
process, are supported by strong clientele groups, and are very
internally cohesive.\12\ As bureaucratic institutions mature, they
develop structures, processes, and procedures designed to preserve the
integrity of the organization, socialize its workforce to support the
mores of the institution, and build alliances and relationships with
external interests and political overseers to assist its growth and
expansion.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For example, see Linda Cohen and Roger Noll, The Technology
Pork Barrel (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute, 1991); Daniel
Greenberg, Science, Money, and Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2001); and James Savage, Funding Science in America (Cambridge,
U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
\11\ Gough, Politicizing Science, 2-5; Steven Milloy and Michael
Gough, Silencing Science (Washington, D.C.: CATO Institute Press,
1998); Marc Morano, ``Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to
`Religious Belief.' '' CNSNews.com, December 2, 2004.
\12\ See, for example, Kenneth Meier, Politics and Bureaucracy:
Policy-making in the Fourth Branch of Government (Wadsworth: Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth, 1987), 101-110.
\13\ Meier, Politics, 57-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Government is the main source of funding for academic
research and development at colleges and universities. With the growing
number of federal research supporting departments and agencies and the
emergence of new federal missions such as the environmental sciences,
the academic research enterprise has grown substantially. While the
growth in federal support for R&D brings new opportunities, it also has
resulted in near complete dependence of individual researchers and
university programs on publicly-financed R&D.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Ibid., 102-103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, the focus remains on the alleged distorting influence of
corporate funding on scientific results. One of the most prominent and
frequently voiced fears is that private interests can undermine
objectivity, inject bias and error, lead to the suppression of results,
and perhaps even precipitate outright fraud. That claim rests on the
assumption that private interests demand results that are solely
consistent with their views and interests. It also rests on the
assumption that integrity and objectivity are always for sale.
Unfortunately, the claim is frequently repeated without the benefit of
rigorous evaluation or evidence to support it.
When the research process is transparent and results are open for
review, it is difficult for bias, fraud, and suppression to long
prevail. And, there can be serious legal and financial consequences
from such behavior. Those potential consequences provide strong
incentives to avoid it.
The George C. Marshall Institute takes its mission seriously and,
consistent with its principles, works diligently to publish reports
that highlight honest assessments of the science. We support a
scientific community that can do its work, generate data, test
hypotheses, and educate free of politicization. This campaign to shut
off funding of organizations that do not accept the global warming
orthodoxy demonstrates that others do not.
We also want to be perfectly clear--no grant to the Institute is
contingent on support for a specific point of view or conclusion. Our
views on climate change long pre-date any support from any corporate
entity. Grants to support the Institute's programs are made without
conditions. Like many public policy institutes, the Marshall Institute
receives support from foundations, individuals, and corporations.
Nevertheless, the Marshall Institute is cited as an example of an
institution propagating misinformation and confusion at the behest of
corporate support. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
report, Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air, released in January 2007, and its
accompanying press release singles out the Marshall Institute for close
scrutiny.\15\ Specific to its references to the Marshall Institute, the
UCS makes basic factual errors and fails to deny the substance of our
work:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Union of Concerned Scientists, Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air:
How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on
Climate Science, (January 3, 2007), http://www.ucsusa.org/news/
press<INF>-</INF>release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html.
<bullet> Sallie Baliunas is not a Marshall Institute board
member or the Institute's Senior Scientist, as is stated on
page 15. She stepped down from both those positions more than a
year ago. Nor is she Chair of the Science Advisory Board as is
claimed in Table 2 on page 34. The Science Advisory Board has
not existed since 2001. The report references a six-year old
archived website to obtain basic information about the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institute's organizational structure (see footnote 204).
<bullet> Willie Soon is not a Marshall Institute Senior
Scientist as is claimed in Table 2 on page 35. Again by relying
on a version of the Institute's website archived by a third
party, the UCS reports out-dated and inaccurate information
(see footnote 261). Dr. Soon stepped down from his position as
Senior Scientist several years ago.
<bullet> The Marshall Institute did not provide a grant to the
Tech Central Science Foundation in 2004 as is asserted on page
32. We received a grant for $12,602 from them and that grant
supported a project focused on risk assessment in the
regulation of chemicals, not climate change.
<bullet> Neither of the pieces by Baliunas cited in footnote
78 merit the weak criticism delivered by the UCS. Most
significantly, both pieces were written before the Institute
received any corporate support. The Marshall Institute did not
begin accepting corporate contributions until 1999, while both
pieces were published in 1995 & 1996.\16\ Second, both pieces
are intended to review aspects of the scientific debates of the
time for the general public. They examine a series of claims
about climate, including solar influences, the Arctic, severe
weather, and much more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See a statement by a past Institute Executive Director
discussing the topic at http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=17,
which is a reprint of an op-ed appearing in the Wall Street Journal on
July 2, 1997.
<bullet> A National Academy of Sciences panel endorsed the
core premise of the Baliunas-Soon analysis in its examination
of the past temperature record (critiqued on page 15). The NAS
panel concluded that Earth's temperatures were relatively
warmer during the Medieval Warm Period (approx. 1000 A.D.),
then cooler during the Little Ice Age (approx. 1700 A.D.), and
have increased since then. Sparse data coverage for the period
before 1600 A.D. prevented the NAS from reaching definitive
conclusions about temperature trends before that date; however
some reconstructions before 1000 A.D. show surface temperatures
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
comparable in warmth to the early 20th century.
The NAS also expressed ``less confidence'' in the original
conclusions of the Mann et al. ``hockey stick'' used by the
IPCC because ``the uncertainties inherent in temperature
reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger
than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the
available proxies record temperature information on such short
timescales.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last
2,000 Years, National Research Council, Surface Temperature
Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Washington, D.C.: National
Research Council, 2006), 3 http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html.
An independent review of the statistical methods used in
constructing the ``hockey stick'' revealed additional
shortcomings. The review led by Professor Edward Wegman of
George Mason University concluded that the ``assessment that
the decade of the 1990s was likely the hottest decade of the
millennium and that 1998 was likely the hottest year of the
millennium cannot be supported by their analysis.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Edward Wegman et al., Ad Hoc Committee Report on the `Hockey
Stick' Global Climate Reconstruction (Washington, D.C. 2006), 4-5
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/
07142006<INF>-</INF>Wegman<INF>-</INF>Report.pdf
<bullet> John Christy and Steven McIntyre are not
``affiliated'' with the Marshall Institute as is suggested on
pages 23-24. They have participated in our public events as
invited guests and Dr. Christy wrote a chapter for our book,
Shattered Consensus, but neither is formally affiliated with
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Institute.
<bullet> The Institute's book, Shattered Consensus, is cited
as an example of ``information laundering'' (pg. 12) yet the
UCS provides no refutation of the contents of the 10 chapters
in this well-reviewed book. Should the rights of these authors
to publish a book be left to the UCS to decide? The authors of
Shattered Consensus are experienced scholars with recognition
and credits meriting attention to their views. They each have
significant qualifications in their fields. For example, the
book's editor, Patrick Michaels, was a co-author of the climate
science paper of the year for 2004 recognized by the
Association of American Geographers.
<bullet> There is no evidence to suggest that the work
undertaken by Dr. Seitz, one of America's most noted scientists
and the Institute's emeritus chair, adhered to anything but the
highest standards (see page 16); a fact which even the UCS
acknowledges. Dr. Frederick Seitz is a distinguished and
acclaimed scientist. He is president emeritus of Rockefeller
University, a premier biomedical research institution. He is a
recipient of the National Medal of Science, the Nation's
highest award in science, for his contributions ``to the
foundation of the modern quantum theory of the solid state of
matter.'' He is also a recipient of the fourth Vannevar Bush
Award presented by the National Science Board. His work, The
Modern Theory of Solids, was the base from which generations of
students learned about solid state physics and served to define
the field. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences, he also
served as its President. His contributions to science and this
country are beyond question.
Dr. Seitz is free to express his views and opinions on
climate change as he sees fit. The UCS singles out his
involvement with a research program funded by R.J. Reynolds in
an attempt to prove that he was a pawn in tobacco's scientific
disinformation campaign. Yet, the research overseen by Dr.
Seitz is not criticized in any way. In fact, the research was
of the highest quality, with one of the scientists supported
later earning a Nobel Prize.
Nevertheless, if we accept that the source of funding invariably
affects findings and opinions, then what should we make of the
significantly greater amount of money spent by environmental advocacy
groups that promote the notion of an impending climate catastrophe?
Governments, private foundations, and non-profit institutions worldwide
spend orders of magnitude more to support the view that apocalyptic
climate change is near. According to data for the period 2000-2002,
private foundations conservatively spend $35-50 million each year on
climate-related projects. This support was significant for many of the
receiving institutions, which are principally public policy institutes
and advocacy organizations. Climate change-related projects accounted
for over 25 percent of the three-year total reported grants and
contributions received by 10 of the top 20 institutions.\19\ At the
same, the Federal Government provides $2-4 billion per year for climate
change research and related environmental sciences. Those funds are
significant to the researchers and the research institutions that
receive it. In 28 of the top 30 performing universities, federal
financing accounted for more than 50 percent of the institution's
expenditures on atmospheric R&D.\20\ Nearly one-half of the top-30
institutions depended on federal support for more than 80 percent of
their resources in this five-year period (1998-2002). By comparison,
the Federal Government provided 59 percent of total R&D funding at
academic institutions in 2001.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Jeff Kueter, Funding Flows for Climate Change Research and
Related Activities (Washington, D.C.: George Marshall Institute, 2005),
4.
\20\ Ibid., 10.
\21\ National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators-
2004 (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 2004), Chap.5, p.
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We would never call for organizations to stop their funding, even
though they make statements that clearly are exaggerations and have no
scientific basis. Public policy institutes and think tanks play an
important role in American policy-making. They are free to disagree
with us just as we are free to make our views known.
Instead of addressing the substance of the debate over the science
and its meaning for public policy, public discussion has regressed to
inferring motives and attacking sources of support in an effort to
silence voices of dissent. Unfounded allegations and unjustified
attacks are a poor substitute for open and candid debate.
It is more than ironic, that most of the so called skeptics focus
their criticisms on the substance of research and analyses while many
who claim that climate science is settled and that we face a climate
catastrophe are resorting to character assassination. Our nation
rejected McCarthyism 50 years ago and we should not allow its rebirth
in another form.
More important than the source of funding is the substance of what
an organization produces. What counts is whether the findings stand up
to critical examination. Are they reproducible? Can they be verified or
falsified?
Ted Koppel best summarized the situation in 1994 when he criticized
a similar effort by then Vice President Gore. His admonition applies as
well today as it did then:
``There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore,
one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White
House in this century, that he is resorting to political means
to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely
scientific basis. . . The issues of global warming and ozone
depletion are undeniably important. The future of mankind may
depend on how this generation deals with them. But the issues
have to be debated and settled on scientific grounds, not
politics. There is nothing new about major institutions seeking
to influence science to their own ends. The church did it,
ruling families have done it, the communists did it, and so
have others, in the name of anti-communism. But it has always
been a corrupting influence, and it always will be. The measure
of good science is neither the politics of the scientist nor
the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the
immersion of hypotheses into the acid of truth. That's the hard
way to do it, but it's the only way that works.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Ted Koppel, ``Is Environmental Science for Sale?'' ABC News
Nightline Transcript, February 24, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving the Value of Science
Preserving the integrity of science in the public policy process is
an important goal. But it would be unrealistic to think that
politicization is avoidable. The science on public policy issues is
rarely, if ever, definitive. There will always be uncertainties that
need to be addressed and matters that require judgment in translating
science into policy options and analyzing them and their implications.
Given the inherent uncertainties in policy planning and the value
judgments that are inherent in the policy process, there is no way to
avoid ``politicizing'' science. Policy-making by its nature is
political and always will be. What can be done are improvements in
policy planning and analysis that improve the quality and value of
science used by policy-makers?
<bullet> Promote transparency. Models, data and assumptions
used in formulating policies should be available for interested
parties to review and critique. This would improve the
understanding of the validity of the models and how various
assumptions affect outcomes.
<bullet> Peer review is an important step if done properly. A
third party should choose reviewers and their comments should
be published but not necessarily their names. Beyond standard
peer review, someone or some organization should be able to
replicate the analysis, especially analyses that can have
significant economic and regulatory impacts.
<bullet> Discontinue consensus documents. The push for
consensus on important science policy issues can mask important
differences among scientists. Policy-makers are better served
knowing where there is widespread agreement and where there are
important disagreements. The ability to publish dissenting
views in policy documents and NAS reports should be encouraged.
<bullet> Establish a ``devil's advocate'' process. For major
issues like climate change and reports like the IPCC Summary
for Policy-Makers, some small group should be charged with
challenging conventional wisdom that when repeated often enough
is treated as fact. If this were being done routinely on
climate change matters, it would not be possible to assert that
the science is settled, that humans are primarily responsible
for the warming in recent decades or that models are reliable
for projecting or predicting climate 100 years from now.
<bullet> Distinguish between science and analysis. Much of the
recent criticism is about the inferences drawn from science and
analysis of options drawn from science. Policy and risk
assessments are not science and it is inappropriate to use
disagreement about policy to claim that the integrity of
science is being violated.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and to present
these views for your consideration.
Biography for Jeff Kueter
President, George C. Marshall Institute
Mr. Jeff Kueter works with scientists to help improve the
understanding and awareness of complex scientific topics to the public,
the media, and policy-makers. Focused on national security and the
environmental topics, Mr. Kueter manages the day-to-day operations of
the George C. Marshall Institute, authoring its policy papers and
analyses and engaging the public and the policy-making community. He
received his B.A. in Political Science and Economics at the University
of Iowa, where he graduated with honors, and an M.A. in Political
Science and another M.A. in Security Policy Studies and Science &
Technology Studies, both from George Washington University. He
previously served as Research Director at the National Coalition for
Advanced Manufacturing (NACFAM).
Discussion
Climate Change: Industry Reaction
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Kueter. There should be
ample time for all the Members of the Committee to ask more
than one round of questions, and I will begin by recognizing
myself for five minutes.
Mr. Rampton, you described in your testimony of the
prototypical corporate campaign to create doubt, and then you
heard Dr. McCarthy, I think, talk specifically about the
campaign with respect to climate change, global warming. How
well does what Dr. McCarthy described fit the model that you
described?
Mr. Rampton. I think it is a very clear example of exactly
what I have been describing. And it is only one of a number of
campaigns that have been carried out over the past two decades
by the various industries. I mean, there was specific talk of
ExxonMobil, but that is only one company. The oil and gas
industries in general, the coal industry have funded numerous
campaigns. One of the first campaigns of this type began in the
early 1990s funded by groups like the National Coal
Association, the Western Fuels Association, and it was called
the Information Council for the Environment, and its goal was
to, in their words, reposition global warming as a theory, not
fact.
A number of the scientists that were recruited for that
campaign, the so-called ICE Campaign, have later gone on to do
exactly the same work and make the exact same statements over
the subsequent two decades. So you see the same figures
recurring, making the same statements, expressing the same
skepticism about global warming.
And the effect is to amplify the views of a relatively
small number of scientists and make it seem like that is, like
there is a huge scientific debate going on when, in fact, there
is not.
Climate Change: Scientific Reaction
Chairman Miller. And Dr. McCarthy, Mr. Rampton in his
testimony talked about, described the difference between how
scientists view truth and how public relations view truth.
Scientists think truth simply exists, and it is for scientists
to discover and understand, and public relation folks are more
inclined to think that truth is a little more malleable than
that and may be created or at least shaped.
I think we all agree that there is some harm in viewing
truth that way, but could you describe for us what that harm
is?
Dr. McCarthy. Well, first, I think the truth that
scientists would revert to is also evolving. It is not a
certainty. In fact, if anyone alleges that we know any of the
sort of the details that have been referred to here regarding
climate change with absolute certainty, one has to be very
suspect of that view.
I think what we have seen, though, is that the
representation of a contrary view and particularly that that
has been supported by industry as we have seen individuals as
is documented in our report, move from the campaign of the
tobacco industry directly into the oil and climate change
industry, have represented as facts information that is not
supported in the scientific literature. These are often based
on reports that have not been published, are not in the
previewed literature, and in some cases have been published but
discredited by numerous additional publications and yet are
still put forward as supporting arguments for a position that
is no longer tenable.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Dr. McCarthy. A joke, and I
guess this is fairly an acquired taste sort of humor, on
universities is that administrators hate having scientists on
faculty panels because you never know where they stand. When
you change the information, they change their positions. Is
that how you see scientists proceeding and should be
proceeding?
Dr. McCarthy. If one were to go back to maybe 15, 20 years
ago in the climate change discussion, it was very difficult to
find clear consensus as to whether the Earth was warming in an
unusual way or not in the 1980s. And then when that was
established in the early 1990s, it was, in fact, difficult to
find a clear statement that would come out of any of these
analyses that this was likely due to human effects.
As we move beyond the mid '90s, we find that that evidence
is stronger and stronger. So it is an evolving understanding of
science, and if anyone could prove this major premise wrong, A,
that the Earth is warming, B, that is largely warming as a
result of greenhouse gasses being added to the atmosphere, C,
that human activities are largely responsible for that, you
know, you would have Nobel prizes all over the place. This is a
really well-established body of information now.
Climate Change: Government Reaction
Chairman Miller. So that Mr. Rampton may feel better about
exceeding his time, I will indulge myself by going a little
over the five minutes.
Mr. Maassarani, your report is an assessment of efforts to
filter the message of federal climate scientists, and you have
heard Mr. Rampton describe the model of how to view the public
relations media campaign technique with respect to scientific
questions. How well does the model he described fit what you
found in your report?
Mr. Maassarani. I would simply say that where Mr. Sheldon
Rampton describes the construction of one end of the scientific
debate, the one aspect of the truth that happens to fit the
incentives of industry or whoever is involved, what we have on
the government side here is the deconstruction of the
scientific debate coming from mainstream science. So what you
are doing is you are offering forth scientific views from the
minority, and then you are suppressing those of the majority.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Funding for Climate Change Skeptics
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to warn
you a little bit about telling a joke at a hearing. I attempted
to make light of an argument at the last hearing dealing with
global climate change, mentioning in jest that perhaps dinosaur
farts caused global warming back in the old times, and guess
what? I was actually making light of the argument that anyone
could claim that flatulence would change our climate, and it
was reported widely across the country on numerous, in numerous
periodicals that that was a very serious statement. That was my
position. That shows you how dishonest this debate has gotten
over global warming. Anyone who was at that hearing understood
very well I was making light of that whole argument on the
other side, yet I was being presented, it was being presented
as that was my opinion.
I think that that is what we are presented time and time
again when we hear about the consensus that we have human-
caused global warming. Let me note when William Happer, who is
now at Princeton University and a member of the National
Academy of Sciences, was fired from his job as chief scientist
from the Department of Energy as Mr. Kueter just mentioned. I
didn't see any of these scientists stepping forward and saying,
``My God, Al Gore is trying to skew the scientific research
that is going on in global warming.'' We didn't hear anything.
This was a blatant example. Not like the examples that you gave
where someone's press release was edited so that his views
would be presented as his own views instead of the views of the
department in which he worked. No. This was firing a man who
now is with the National Academy of Sciences and a Professor at
Princeton University or is it Princeton University did he come
from? Yes.
Let me note here again I have a few statements here from
the Director of Research, Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute,
Professor of Aeronautical Engineering, Penn State, ``I protest
against the overwhelming pressure to adhere to the climate
change dogma.'' Here is Richard Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist,
Professor of Meteorology at MIT, and if I can find my reading
glasses I will be able to do this a lot better, but I will
attempt to read it here.
Thank you very much. I was talking about the gentleman who,
from the Royal Dutch Meteorological Association say that he was
dismissed as Research Director from that meteorological
association after questioning the scientific under pane of
global warming, as well as respected Italian professors and
they name them here, Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza. They
all disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing
climate research funding for raising questions. Now, why did
they lose their funding? They lost their funding because at the
Department of Energy, William Happer, had been eliminated by Al
Gore because he was skeptical of the global warming theory.
Here is a few more for you just to let everybody know about
the consensus that we are talking about. Timothy Ball, Chairman
of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and former
Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg,
``Believe it or not, global warming is not due to human
contributions of carbon dioxide. In fact, it is one of the
greatest deceptions in the history of scientists, of science,
and we are wasting time, energy, and trillions of dollars.''
Then, of course, you have got this gentlemen who, Dr.
William Gray, one of the most distinguished meteorologists in
the history of this country, Professor of atmospheric science,
the University of Colorado, who stated I had, and this is, he
had said he had been cut off of all of his research grants once
the Clinton Administration came in because of skepticism of
global warming. ``I had NOAA money for some 30 years, and then
when Clinton, the Clinton Administration came in and Gore
started directing some of the environmental stuff, I was cut
off. I couldn't get any NOAA money. They turned me down 13, for
13 straight proposals.''
Now, these are ample evidence of the type of suppression of
the other argument that is going on in order for you gentlemen
and other people to claim there is a consensus. There are
hundreds of such scientists who are very respected, who have
been cut off, and why aren't they getting Nobel prizes? Because
they have been cut off for their research by anybody who even
suggests the skepticism of global warming. Yet we hear a
complaint now about people's press releases being edited.
Let me note here that, just about global warming itself.
Yeah. Nobody suggests that there isn't some warming going on in
the planet. Nobody suggests that. There is some kind of warming
going on in the climate. They used to call it climate change. I
mean, they used to call it global warming. Now they call it
climate change in order to cover themselves, but there has been
a change, and that is because, and over--I saw the charts for
the people that came back here and talked to us, over 150 years
there has been a one degree change in the temperature, one
degree. And I noted at that hearing, this is the one where they
tried to claim the only quote they used from me was a dinosaur
flatulent quote, I noted that they had started that one degree
change in temperature at the very bottom of a 500-year decrease
in the temperature of the world. It is called the mini-ice age.
So we have had since the end, the bottom level of the mini-ice
age we have had a one degree change in temperature. We have had
many, many changes and cycles in the temperature of the Earth.
Many of them. And those cycles were caused probably by the same
reason that there is now another cycle going on. It is called
solar activity.
Now, no doubt there is, there has been these cycles, and we
are in one right now, and solar activity, I believe there are
many scientists who believe that that could be just as
important, if not more important, than anything human beings
are doing.
And I will leave it with this, and that is if it wasn't
solar activity, if it was really humankind doing this, why is
the temperature going up on Mars? NASA just released a study
suggesting that the polar ice caps are melting on Mars. Is that
because of all the humanlike activity going on on Mars? I don't
think so.
So I think this debate, Mr. Chairman, it is an important
debate, and but we do not need to dismiss someone's arguments,
just saying we have a consensus, so instead, what we are going
to do is not even listen to a scientist who is suggesting that
there is an argument against the positions and the ``facts''
that are being presented to us that justify an analysis that
comes up that global warming is caused by human beings. And
again, listen, I consider myself open minded in this. I have an
opinion, a strong opinion, but I am never going to tell
someone, I am not going to listen to your argument because I
have a consensus of people I have talked to, and I am not even
going to actually confront your arguments.
That is what we have here today, Mr. Chairman. We have a
dismissal of other people's arguments. We have blaming Exxon
for it, and I am very happy to see our young people here
wearing their Exxon shirts, and they are participating in the
system, and I applaud you for that. And there are certainly big
corporations that do manipulate people and try to for their own
purposes. There are other interest groups that manipulate
people as well. A lot of interest groups in this country that
manipulate people as well
With that said, I thank you for the hearing because I think
this is good for the debate.
Chairman Miller. Well, Mr. Rohrabacher, you have a second
round of questions and perhaps something you say in the second
round might end in a question mark. And Mr. Rohrabacher, I will
not promise you that I will avoid any and all jokes in the
conduct of these hearings, but I will avoid jokes about
flatulence.
Mr. Baird.
Scientists as Policy Advisors
Mr. Baird. I thank the Chair. I want to begin by thanking
the panelists, and I think this is really not just about
climate change. I believe the evidence on climate change is
quite compelling. I think the international report suggests
that it is. What this hearing is really about is the distortion
of science, and my belief, and I think the evidence is
compelling, that this Administration has put unprecedented and
undue stress, or really censorship, on researchers throughout
federal agencies. And I applaud the individuals for raising
this. I think that is repugnant and contraindicated in terms of
our trying to understand issues.
So I share the broad concern about the distortion of
scientific policy, one manifestation of which may be the global
warming debate, but there are many, many others, including
reproductive health, how federal advisory committees are
structured, how is on them, how is off, et cetera, and this
committee should look into that.
Having said that, I also want to say that I think, Mr.
Rampton, your points about the power given to scientists cut
both ways. I am familiar with cases where a number of
scientists have signed onto letters saying they hold a
position, you know, so the PR campaign is X number of
``distinguished scientists'' have signed a letter about, fill
in the blank. And at least some of those cases I am quite
confident that the ``distinguished scientists'' have not ever
read the particular study they are signing onto, but they are
lending their weight to it. And this happens on both the left
and the right, and again, as I stated at the outset, I think it
is wrong if it happens on either side, because I think
scientists on all sides needs to hold themselves to a higher
standard.
So one of my questions would be are there standards within
the scientific community about what one must do before one
signs onto some such letter? In other words, read the studies
yourself, look at the data from the particular studies, et
cetera, or can one just sign on and say I hold a doctorate or a
Master's degree in some form of science. Therefore, I am
qualified to comment on a particular issue. And I will just put
this out to the panelists.
Mr. Rampton. I think the short answer to the question of
whether there those standards would be no. I mean, in fact,
there are people who claim, speak on matters of science who
have, you know, law degrees or there is a fellow named Stephen
Malloy, who has a Master's degree in biostatistics and is very
prominent and outspoken about the problem of what he calls junk
science, formerly funded by the tobacco industry. In fact,
very, until recently, and he doesn't disclose his current
funding information. So in terms of credentials, as a scientist
he has really none, and yet he is often cited as an authority
on matters of what is and is not good science.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Rampton, would you say, would you suggest,
are you equally concerned if people signing onto letters on
either side of an issue or not, versed in the issue that they
are signing onto?
Mr. Rampton. Well, I think a scientist is a citizen like
anyone else and has the right to express his or her opinion. I
think that when scientists lend the credibility of their
expertise to something, they ought to be speaking on the matter
where, in fact, they are experts, where they actually have
degrees in that particular field. And you do have a common
problem that I think scientists tend to assume that because
they have rigorous training in some field, that their intellect
is sufficient to enable them to weigh in on all sorts of other
areas where they are not qualified. And you have any number of
cases where scientists have made outright fools of themselves
by weighing in on areas where they are not, in fact, expert.
So I think that when a scientist speaks outside his or her
field of expertise, their voice should be treated as simply the
voice of another citizen. Does that answer your question?
Mr. Baird. Yes. To some degree. I will follow up, and Dr.
McCarthy, first of all, as a person who first became a member
myself of AAAS some 30 years or so ago now, I suppose, I
congratulate you on your election. I have great respect for the
institution.
I also have some concerns about cases I am intimately
familiar with where Science Magazine rushed publications into
press in order to influence public policy, and I think without
due peer review. Now, I am not saying you did it because you
were pressured by some outside group, et cetera, but I do think
in this particular case it was an unfortunate act and did not
reflect the highest standards of either the Association or the
journal of Science itself.
And I guess I would just ask your comments about that. If
there is a matter of public policy of some significant import,
should that lead a journal to rush something into press without
adequate peer review, or would one not want to say precisely
because a matter of policy is being influenced we should
exercise particular attention to make sure that the peer review
is thorough and we get the data right?
Dr. McCarthy. Well, there is only one obvious answer to
that, of course. An organization like the AAAS should always be
concerned about its reputation. I am not familiar with the
incident that you have alluded to, but it sounds as if that is
one in which you thought their reputation was not well served,
and based on your representation I have to agree.
But let me give another example. Three years ago now the
Union of Concerned Scientists, first becoming aware of some of
the abuses of our federal agencies with regard to science,
issued a report on restoring the integrity of scientific
integrity. And that is, again, something that the Union worked
a great deal to make sure was a very crisp document, and the
initial 60 people to sign that were not just random people. To
see whether this really was a strong statement, to see whether
it resonated, individuals who were winners of the national
medal of science, former advisors of Presidents of the United
States of America, all the way back to President Eisenhower,
were asked to look at this statement. Heads of major research
institutions and to the best of my knowledge no one who looked
at it said, I won't sign it because it is wrong or because I
think you have misrepresented this. Some people said I can't
sign it because it would put my institution at stake. I am that
concerned. But here is an example of where there was a very
careful effort made to insure that this was set at the highest
level, of people who could say, you know what? This happens all
the time. Let me tell you about what happened in 1979, let me
tell you about 1963. And we didn't get that. So then when you
go through that process, you can be confident that the
integrity of the institution, the reputation of the institution
is not going to be harmed by this.
But the case you mentioned I would certainly agree. Any
effort to rush something without the process that is the
tradition of that scientific body would be reckless and
irresponsible.
Mr. Baird. I will chat with you separately about that, but
I also commend you for that report. We actually held rump
hearings, and I say rump hearings because the then Chair of the
Committee would not allow us to have official hearings on that
very issue that your report concerned.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Baird. Mr. Rothman.
Recommendations
Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen,
for your work and for your appearance today.
I think I have detected a consensus, which is that everyone
agrees there have been abuses of scientists in the employ of
the Federal Government by members of the Federal Government. Is
that a fair statement of one of the things you can agree on?
And if so, what do you each recommend as ways to prevent that
from happening again?
Let us start from my right. Mr. Kueter.
Mr. Kueter. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on
that subject, sir. In my prepared remarks I have a set of
recommendations that the Institute has vetted to get at these
issues that you have described.
The first that we put forward is the promotion of
transparency, and it goes to an issue that Mr. Baird just
mentioned. The need to have data that is used in making federal
decisions brought forward for critical analyses and audits is
essential in order to understand the veracity of the claims
that are being made. To date that is a difficult process to get
through.
Mr. Rothman. So what is the fix?
Mr. Kueter. Require that the peer-reviewed studies that are
being used to guide your decisions have their data archived and
be open for scrutiny and analysis by independent researchers.
It would be our recommendation that you establish a devil's
advocate's process, similar to what the DOD uses with its red
team process or its team B processes, where you bring in a set
of folks that don't necessarily agree with the consensus on a
particular issue and ask them to scrub that issue thoroughly
and report back to the Congress or a particular committee with
their findings. At that point then you would have probably two
very different sets of arguments that would be put forward and
perspectives on a particular issue. Then you would understand
the parameters----
Mr. Rothman. Okay.
Mr. Kueter.--and distribution of----
Mr. Rothman. I appreciate those recommendations, and my
time is limited, and I will read those and recommend the staff
read them as well.
I am more concerned about the, that just brings more
information in different points of view, which is great and
very helpful, but I heard the concern being over the twisting
of scientific opinion or the censoring of scientific opinion or
the elimination of a point of view from the Administration. So
how would, could we have some comments on how to avoid that,
the censorship and the elimination of these differing points of
view? This brings in other points of view as well. Mr. Kueter.
Mr. Maassarani.
Mr. Maassarani. If I may. Thank you. We have an extensive
list in the report itself. I will go over a couple that I think
are particularly important.
One is to implement clear and transparent media policies at
the agencies where, these can require prior notification and a
summary of any media interactions that have occurred but that
eliminate the need for required, mandatory, pre-approval,
monitoring, routing of media requests from one scientist to
another, as well as drafting of anticipated questions and
answers by the scientists prior to the interviews. That would
be one step.
I will mention one more real quick, and that is to reaffirm
and to put into the policies at these agencies the personal
views exception. Basically, we feel that insofar as agencies
have the right to control the kind of message that is going to
be projected on their behalf, especially on policy matters,
that doesn't mean that it forecloses a scientist's
constitutional right to speak. In those instances scientists
need to know that they can speak out----
Mr. Rothman. Right.
Mr. Maassarani.--on policy matters.
Mr. Rothman. The question is from a federal office building
with federal resources, et cetera. Those I would think are
other issues, but for allowing that right of a citizen.
Mr. Maassarani. Well, as long as they qualify the statement
that they are saying this on their own, as their own private
view.
Mr. Rothman. And I apologize for the brevity of the time.
Mr. Maassarani. No problem.
Mr. Rothman. Dr. McCarthy.
Dr. McCarthy. I am not sure you were here, Congressman
Rothman, when I mentioned I congratulate the House on its
passage of the whistleblower protection measure and hope that
the Senate follows your lead. That would be one very important
measure.
Another, following up on the earlier remarks, would be to
insure that when there is an interaction between a public
relations staff and a scientist, the scientist has the
opportunity for final say in that document. And if changes have
been suggested which actually change the apparent meaning of
the findings of the scientist, then the scientist should be
able to reject them.
Mr. Rothman. Do you think this should be as a matter of
federal law, or do you think there should be, these procedures
of an Administration to best practices, if you will?
Dr. McCarthy. I leave that to you, you wise people.
Mr. Rothman. Yeah.
Dr. McCarthy. I would just like to make certain that in
whatever way this can be guaranteed to federal scientists.
Mr. Rothman. May I ask Mr. Rampton to comment, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Rampton. Well, I just mention that medical journals
have dealt with a fairly similar problem, which is that, you
know, a number of privately-funded medical researchers in the
past have run into the situation where as a condition for, you
know, funding of their research by some, for example,
pharmaceutical company, there is a stipulation that the company
owns the right to prior approval of publication. And some of
the top medical journals have adopted a policy which is that
they will not publish research in their journals unless the
scientist who has gotten funding has been guaranteed the right
to publish regardless of what he finds.
And I think similar provisions by the Government with
regard to Government funds to scientists makes sense that
whatever scientists finds ought to be, you know, there should
not be someone, there ought to be a firewall of protection so
that the scientists at the moment of having something to
publish or findings to announce is guaranteed that regardless
of what is found that there will be freedom to publish it.
Mr. Rothman. Mr. Chairman.
Administration Position on Climate Change
Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Rothman. Like Mr. Rothman,
I think I will try to make sure there is some consensus among
the panel on some topics at least.
It has been at least a generation since there has been any
serious scientific question about the adverse health
consequences of smoking. The documents that we have discovered
from the tobacco industry in litigation show that the tobacco
industry, in fact, knew before federal researchers did of the
adverse health consequences because of their own research.
Their own research showed the damaging health affects of
smoking, but they simply paid scientists to put their name on
documents that the industry itself had drafted.
Do any of you disagree that that is morally blameworthy
conduct? Does anyone wish to defend that kind of conduct? Now,
I know there is some question about whether that is happening
now and who is doing it, but as a general matter does anyone
wish to defend that kind of conduct?
There has been a puzzling disagreement going back to where
there is not consensus within the Bush Administration. We have
heard from Mr. Maassarani and from Dr. McCarthy that there has
been an effort by the Bush Administration to control what
federal scientists say about global warming. We have heard that
Phil Cooney, who is not a scientist but worked at the Council
for Environmental Quality, excuse me, worked at the American
Petroleum Institute and has gone from there to work for
ExxonMobil, edited climate change reports behind the scenes to
make the reports much more equivocal than what the scientists
who had written them initially, what the scientist draft
expressed. But just a month ago Dr. William Brennan, not the
Supreme Court Justice, but a NOAA official and acting director
of the Climate Change Science Program testified before the
Senate that the Bush Administration accepted and had always
accepted the 2001, National Academy of Science report on
climate change science, that greenhouse gasses are accumulating
in the Earth's atmosphere, and are the result of human
activities. He said that the Bush Administration accepted the
latest report of the IPCC and had never held a different
position.
Mr. Maassarani, what are we to believe?
Mr. Maassarani. Sorry I can't answer that. I think to some
extent with the IPCC report having come out it is going to be
more and more difficult to support the proposition that the
Bush Administration held earlier, that there is no connections
or that global warming isn't happening. So no matter how much
you would want to resist it anyway, but I think perhaps that is
what we are seeing here. I am not sure if what you are trying
to get at, I am not sure it means that the Bush Administration
is listening to its scientists more than it was before. I would
hope so.
Chairman Miller. Dr. McCarthy.
Dr. McCarthy. It is a puzzle. In the spring of 2001, when
President Bush announced that he would no longer honor his
campaign position to regulate carbon dioxide emissions released
to the atmosphere, it came just a couple of months after the
third assessment report of the IPCC. At that time Mr. Bush
asked the National Academy of Sciences to take a look at the
IPCC report, and you have just given us the bottom line of the
National Academy conclusion. And many of us were very hopeful
at that time that now we would begin to see action taken.
Again, for those who aren't aware, the U.S. delegation to the
IPCC proceedings is formed by the State Department. It includes
high ranking scientists from our science agencies, but it
really is, it really does represent the views of our Department
of State in all those deliberations.
So the fact that beneath the radar the sort of actions that
this report and others have managed to reveal suggest that even
though things were being said which sounded as if the
Administration was not challenging the science, at the level in
which the work was being done, that, in fact, was a very
different matter.
Mr. Maassarani. Can I just add something to that? I just
want to----
Chairman Miller. Mr. Maassarani.
Mr. Maassarani.--make clear that as far as we know the U.S.
National Assessment still is not referenced on the websites. It
is still, any reference or mention to it still seems to be
suppressed as it was when it first came out. So certainly that
hasn't happened.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Rohrabacher, do you wish to complete
the question you began earlier?
Climate Change Skeptics
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Well, let me just
note that the Government Accountability Project's report, while
having the same sort of tone that we have heard here today and
also included I would say the innuendos that we have heard
today, also lacked the specific charges that we haven't heard
here today as well. I mean, it is one thing to imply that there
are this sort of stifling going on and when the report is said,
and I quote, ``It found no incidence of direct interference in
climate change research, as well as the investigation by the
Government Accountability Project has uncovered no concrete
evidence that political actors are directly and willfully
interfering with this fundamental aspect of scientific work.''
And now, we can make innuendos all we want, and we can
ignore everything that the other side does that is very blatant
in suppressing this argument, like the firing of the lead
scientist at the Department of Energy. It is very easy for
someone who is a political activist or politically oriented who
has got some scientific credentials or sometimes doesn't have
scientific credentials but is speaking as if he or she does, to
sort of imply that there is some sort of suppression going on
when obviously, as I say, examples and I gave four earlier on,
of blatant examples of where people were losing contracts for
their position as being skeptical of global warming, but for
example, we have NASA, James Hanson and you are aware of this.
Maybe perhaps one of the people you are talking about in your
report was Mr. Hanson who complained that his press releases
were being manipulated or his association with the press was in
some way being controlled. Last week at a hearing on the Senate
side acknowledged that he had been interviewed 14,000 times,
14,000 interviews on global warming. Now, someone who is
capable of having that many interviews, let us just, let us say
there was only a thousand. Okay. Maybe it wasn't, this is only
what I saw in the press. This is what I saw as a question
during the interviews over there, but let us say it was just
1,000. That doesn't indicate that there is some suppression
going on. It may indicate there is a guy over at NASA who
thinks his opinions are worth more than anybody else's opinion
on this, and maybe he was presenting it in a way that was
perceived as speaking for NASA.
Now, there is every right for the people that work at NASA
to make sure that someone who disagrees with them is not
presenting himself or herself as spokesman for NASA instead of
this is my opinion on what I have found and what I believe to
be true on this issue.
So that is number one. And I would like to remind everybody
about when people talk about, you know, coming in and not
having the right kind of science to back up charges and things
like that. You know, I have been here longer than I think
anybody in this room, and I will tell you the first incident
that I ever had like this, I was, I have been a Member of the
Science Committee for 19 years now, and my very first year Al
Gore came right there and sat right there.
Now, I was behind him a few days ago and listening to him,
and it may surprise some of you, but I agreed with about half
of what Al Gore had to say, and that is a pretty good consensus
considering that, you know, I don't agree with the global
warming aspect, but trying to clean up the pollution, make us
energy self-sufficient. Man, I think that some of his ideas
were right on, and I am planning to try to work with my fellow
Republicans to work on that.
But my first year Al Gore came there and sat right where
you are, and he had, again, he had all the camera crews out so
that all the young people in the world could see him pounding
on the desk, and he was demanding that the former President
Bush, who was President then, declare an ozone emergency. Do
any of you remember that incident? Do you remember that at all?
Okay. That was very clear to me, because that was my first year
as a Congressman. Do you know what happened? He was demanding
that the President declare an ozone emergency for the northeast
of the United States, which would have cost thousands of jobs
to add billions of dollars of disruption to our economy, and
guess what? A week later they found out that it was a
misreading of some instruments on one piper cub airplane by
some researcher from one university that misread the
instruments.
Now, what I see here is when we are making charges like,
which are monumental to our economy, billions of dollars worth
of outcome, these kids lives are not going to be better if we
end up trying to save the climate rather than clean the air or
rather than making us energy self-sufficient, because we get,
you know, because we get focused on a wrong goal because people
are trying to claim there is an ozone emergency when there
isn't one.
So I will end it with a question so anybody can--is there
or are there or are there not, you have stated over and over
again, this consensus in order to dismiss any real discussion
of global warming I keep hearing the consensus, you know,
rather than confronting the arguments, I get in two arguments
today, global warming is happening on Mars. We also mentioned
how they began their research and the one degree temperature
rise started at the bottom level. Two big, you know, issues
there with global warming. Instead of them confronting
arguments, you are saying that a consensus isn't there. Do you
agree that there are a significant number of scientists with
very good credentials who are not part of this so-called
consensus, who have ample reason and are legitimately offering
some skepticism of global warming? Or is this something, again,
dismiss it?
Chairman Miller. Actually, the time limit applies to the
question and the answer, and we are now gloriously past the
time, but does any of you have a very brief answer, and or can
you provide a more complete answer in writing? A very brief
answer. Dr. McCarthy.
Dr. McCarthy. I can try. Certainly there is a range of
opinions on all these issues, and this is what the IPCC is all
about. It is in distilling where the best science is, and I
must tell you that that is a very agonizing process, and it has
the transparency that Mr. Kueter was referring to earlier.
Everything is documented. You can go back and find all those
reviews. Everything is there to be examined, and it is a very
conservative process. Could it be the sun? Well, you can ask
that question. It is in energetics. You can ask that question.
How much is the solar variability changing over time? How much
is the insulation of the atmosphere changing? How do they
compare?
This can all be done and is being done, and it turns out
that the solar variability as best estimated, we only measure
precisely back to 1980, but with sun records going back for the
last 100 years, is about one-tenth, it is about plus or minus
two-tenths of a watt per square meter, about one-tenth the two
watts per square meter that we have now accumulated as
insulation in the atmosphere.
So there is no scientific paper that would allow you to say
that you can test that theory and find anything like the signal
for solar variability that you find for the insulation effect,
and that is the way this science proceeds. If anyone could
write that paper and showed how the solar variability could
affect this change, then it would be in these reports.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Kueter, can you answer in a sentence
that Hemmingway might have written instead of James Joyce?
Mr. Kueter. I would refer the Members to the Executive
Summary of Working Group I, Chapter 12 of the Third Assessment
Report of the IPCC, which documents a number of ongoing and
outstanding uncertainties in the state of science. That similar
list was reproduced in the Fourth Assessment released just two
months ago. The importance of those uncertainties is documented
in the National Research Council's 2001 report that was
previously referenced. I would say that is the subject of the
debate and ought to be the focus of our future discussions
about climate change.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Maassarani, a Hemmingway sentence.
Mr. Maassarani. If I may just briefly confront two
statements made by Mr. Rohrabacher. The first was in an earlier
statement about press releases being edited to reflect the sole
opinion. There is nothing in our report or investigations that
says that. It says press releases were edited to downplay or
minimize their scientific significance.
The other thing, 14,000 interviews I believe is a
misstatement as well. Fourteen thousand Google hits I think was
at issue there, and I can say three things on that subject.
First, our studies have found that media interactions are
virtually uninhibited when it comes to local, foreign, or
technical news journals. The restrictions are for major
outlets.
Second, the comment doesn't specify what time period we are
talking about for Hanson to talk. We have seen these problems
as problems emerging in the recent past.
And lastly, it is our belief that one incident of
interference based on political motivations is unacceptable.
Thank you.
Freedom of Information Act Requests
Chairman Miller. I need to excuse myself, I have votes in
another committee beginning now, but, and I will turn the gavel
over to Mr. Rothman in just a moment. But Mr. Maassarani,
before I leave, Mr. Rohrabacher pointed out gaps in your
report, instances in your report where he said you had no
evidence. I admired how far your report was able to go based on
FOIA requests. My own experience in FOIA requests as a Member
of Congress, not as a Chairman of the Investigations and
Oversight Committee, was how limited a FOIA request was. The
limitation or the exception for pre-decisional documents really
meant all the good stuff was not really subject to a FOIA
request, you know, why the decision was really made.
What kinds of obstacles did you find in your research using
FOIA requests, and would you work with our staff if you assumed
that we may, we have more tools in our toolbox than FOIA
requests?
Mr. Maassarani. Certainly. The obstacles include the
following. We FOIA'd three agencies: NASA, NOAA, and the EPA.
It was a fairly involved request, asking for a number of things
that covered anything related to media policies or guidelines
as one of the points. NASA got back to us with their media
policy, and that is it. It was a nine-page NASA response. EPA
was unresponsive to our request. They had nothing regarding,
relating to media, and you can see some of the language of our
FOIA in the report. There is, it is beyond me to imagine how
they would not have a single record on what we requested.
Other irregularities, at NOAA, for example, though they got
us a good load of FOIA documents. We had scientists directly
send us some of the FOIA material they were giving over to the
FOIA office, and that never made it through the official FOIA
process, upwards of hundreds of pages of documents.
So and lastly, on a legal point, the FOIA, the redactions
that were made and the withheld documents, they weren't
actually justified under any of the FOIA, under the law of the
FOIA, so we didn't know whether they were pre-decisional or
what the basis was.
Thank you.
Chairman Miller. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Baird for
questions, and if Mr. Rothman will now assume the gavel.
Science Publishing Concerns
Mr. Baird. I thank the Chair, and I want to pose two
ethical questions, and I will preface this by not only do I
have a doctorate in a scientific field, clinical psychology,
specialized in neuropsych, but I used to teach the statistics
and research methods course and used to teach the history of
science and scientific ethics, and so I know a little about
Popper and Kuhn and Feynman and some of the other folks.
And let me just pose a question to my dear friend from
California, Mr. Rohrabacher, and then the converse question to
the panel. And I will ask my friend from California the
following question, and then I am going to propose the converse
to the panel, because I think there are some problems on both
sides.
For the gentleman from California, what do you think the
ethical position should be if you are a scientist who in your
best judgment has objectively analyzed the data and they lead
you to one conclusion. As best you understand it from the data,
and a supervisor tells you for political reasons because your
data don't lend credence to an official position, that you
can't publish that. So you think you have something to offer to
the debate, and a political person, and I am going to hold that
question. I will ask the gentleman to respond.
Let me do the converse, however. Mr. McCarthy commented and
others the passage of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and one
of the amendments of that, which I voted for but with some
reservation, said basically that it is not allowable for a
supervisor to prevent something from being published after it
has been accepted in a peer review journal.
Let us suppose you are a supervisor with ultimate
responsibility for the scientific credibility of what comes
from your shop. Someone within your shop sends, unbeknownst to
you, a publication to a peer review journal, which accepts it.
You learn about the acceptance post-talk and then say, wait a
second, I haven't had a chance to review this document, and
upon reviewing it, I find significant flaws in the data, but
the Congress of the United States has now passed a law that
says you can't withhold the publication of a study that you
believe to be flawed on its scientific merits. And I know of a
case where that happened, by the way.
So the gentleman from California and then the panel if we
may.
Mr. Rohrabacher. First of all, maybe you could give me
three examples of where that has happened. I have given you
four or five examples of how it happened blatantly in the last
Administration and how there are numbers of scientists who
claimed to have been frozen out of grants because they were----
Mr. Baird. Well, hypothetically. I know of examples where
it has happened.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Well, I need three examples, and I
would like for the panel to come up with three examples for me
because----
Mr. Baird. Let us suppose it happened.
Mr. Rohrabacher. What a scientist's responsibility is, the
same as a journalist, you know, I am a professional journalist.
That is what I did for a living. I was a writer. I was not a
lawyer, which lawyers can justify just about anything, but----
Mr. Baird. But journalists are not biased. We know that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. No. Journalists--correct. Okay. Here is
the answer. If a scientist has done his, has done research, has
come to a conclusion, he should express that in any way that he
can as what he believes with his credentials, understanding
there are other scientists who disagree with him. This is not
where one claims I have discovered truth, and all of a sudden
everybody else has to shut up. And what we have got here is you
have some people who are very strong political positions as
well as being scientists.
Mr. Baird. But let me reclaim just to ask this question.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Sure.
Mr. Baird. What if your supervisor says you cannot publish
your data so that it can enter the marketplace of ideas and
debate? What is your----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, obviously, I believe that anything
that has, as you say, gone through the peer review process, no
one should prevent things from being discussed. In fact, I have
just, I am the strong advocate of having everything discussed,
and I think there has been much more censorship on the other
side of this issue than the one you are getting at. If you can
give me some examples of that, I will be happy to sign on with
you and say I am very concerned about this scientist, this
scientist, and this scientist who are permitted to publish.
Now----
Mr. Baird. Well, let me return if I may to the panel to
hear the converse.
Mr. Rohrabacher. What element of it, to answer your
question, the thing is----
Mr. Rothman. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Mr. Rothman. It is Mr. Baird's, Dr. Baird's time.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me----
Mr. Rothman. It is Dr. Baird's time.
Mr. Baird. You and I--Dana, we will have time. We will get
together.
Mr. Rothman. It is Dr. Baird's time.
Mr. Baird. I will give you 30 seconds.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. No. Even five seconds. It is just
so, we are not talking about whether or not----
Mr. Baird. You have 26 seconds.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Hold on now. So we are basically saying
that he wasn't allowed to publish in the name of--you can't as
a scientist publish in the name of NASA, but you can publish.
NASA doesn't have to say we are publishing this as our opinion.
Mr. Baird. I am aware of case--I will reclaim my time and
tell you I am aware of cases where people were told they could
not put their name on a study, period, because they were within
the employ of a federal agency, even if the study was published
not under the official aegis of the agency but merely the fact
that you were employed by that agency extracted your name from
publication. I am personally aware of that case.
About the reverse where the moral conundrum, ethical
conundrum applies to the supervisor who recognizes flawed data
but now the Congress has put that person in a position, if we
pass this law into law, that they can't retract the study
before it becomes published without running into some
significant problems.
Dr. McCarthy. There are many laboratories in which it is
the procedure for all staff to have their reports, their
professional papers reviewed within the laboratory. That
happens in research in universities, happens in research
centers all over. So it is not unusual.
If even, if without that, or if one attempted to go around
that or even if that process were followed and the report were
published, peer reviewed and published, and were found to have
errors, then, of course, it is incumbent upon anyone who
discovers those errors to call attention to them with letters
to the editor or perhaps retractions of the paper. I think one
distinction to be made here, though, is that you are talking
about a case in which the results are clearly derived from
research. They are, you mentioned data, and I think it is
somewhat different from what we have seen in many of the cases
that have been discussed here, in which scientists are making
statements which are judged by people within the Administration
to have policy implications. And for that reason they have run
into difficulty.
Mr. Baird. Yeah. My problem is if somebody's putting
forward data that will lead to policy implications, it relates
to the aforementioned issue, which we will talk about
separately, but and we have put, in Congress, the supervisor in
an untenable position where they can't say, this shouldn't go
to press because it is flawed because one it has been accepted
for publication, under the amendment we passed last week in
this Congress----
Dr. McCarthy. Uh-huh.
Mr. Baird.--we put those supervisor, I think, in an
unethical position, and I intend to address this before it goes
to conference.
Dr. McCarthy. Well, if it is accepted for publication, let
us say in a peer review journal, because of oversight in the
review process, and that happens, as you know, all the time,
then there are corrective measures. There are letters to the
editor, there are subsequent papers.
Mr. Baird. Sure, but you know that is like a retraction in
journalism. You know once the study is published, it gets
quoted 100,000 times. The retractions are minimal, and I will
tell you that some journals substantially restrict and put much
greater scrutiny on the retractions, I know this personally,
than they do on the initial publication.
Dr. McCarthy. Certainly retractions but I think letters are
often a very powerful way of dealing with that.
Mr. Rothman. I thank the gentleman. I am going to take five
minutes for questions.
Political Pressure on Scientists
Can the panel give me at least three examples of the kind
of censorship or problems in this Administration that our
colleague from California suggests has taken or took place
under the previous Administration?
Mr. Maassarani. If I understand correctly, Mr. Rohrabacher
was referring to grant decisions allowing funding of certain
research proposals, as well as more recently he talked about,
or the question that was under debate now, was whether there
was a publication that had been----
Mr. Rothman. No, no, no. Just censorship----
Mr. Maassarani. Okay.
Mr. Rothman.--or undue influence, the kind of things you
were talking about in general terms in each of your respective
testimonies. At least three of you.
Mr. Maassarani. Sure. I will give you an anecdote that
comes from a confidential source of one of the agencies. Just
find my notes real quick.
This was a person that was positioned in the public affairs
office of the agency. The predecessor for this person had been
begged to resign from this, to be reassigned from this position
to another one because of the pressure that was associated with
the position. Basically they found themselves between the
political appointees within the public affairs office and the
scientists themselves and the information they were trying to
get out. This person was told regarding one of the scientists,
you make him be quiet. Get that guy to stop speaking to the
public. It is your job. I cannot believe you cannot control
that person. This person has, and I quote, was summoned to
their political appointee's supervisor's office at times where
their discussion would take place behind closed doors and
involved White House offices such as the Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
This person was to inform the superiors of any interview
requests from major news outlets that concerned climate change,
and those would be rerouted through----
Mr. Rothman. That is one individual. Do we have any other
examples that either, anyone wishes to speak about?
Dr. McCarthy. I can refer to examples which are in the
testimony from our report, Atmospheric Pressure, in which 21
percent of the respondents, they personally experienced
pressure to eliminate the words, climate change or global
warming or other similar terms from a variety of
communications. Fifteen percent of the respondents said they
personally experienced changes or edits during review that
changed the meaning of scientific findings, and then in all 58
percent of the scientists said they had personally experienced
at least one incident of some form of interference within the
last five years, a total of 435 incidents of political
interference. And these are documented in our report.
Mr. Rothman. Mr. Rampton, do you have any comment on this
or----
Mr. Rampton. I think I will pass if that is okay.
Mr. Rothman. Okay. And Mr. Kueter, since I see this hearing
is among other things but most importantly what role the
Congress should take in trying to prevent intimidation,
censorship of scientists within the Federal Government by
members of the Federal Government, do you have any examples
about any conduct during this Administration that you found
were examples of censorship on one, cutting one way or the
other?
Mr. Kueter. We haven't analyzed the behavior of this
particular Administration, but the book that I referenced in my
testimony, Politicizing Science, documents at least four
different cases of where there has been evidence of selective
use of results over misinterpretation of those findings or
blatant interference in the conduct of experiments and in the
behavior of past Administrations.
Mr. Rothman. Okay. So for the last seven years, you haven't
studied the actions of what has gone on in our Federal
Government for the last six years and change?
Mr. Kueter. Not in terms of trying to conduct the kinds of
surveys that these gentlemen are talking about.
Mr. Rothman. Okay. So you are more of a historian then. You
can tell us what happened in the last Administration but not
the last six years?
Mr. Kueter. I am a public policy analyst. That is, our role
is to be----
Mr. Rothman. Okay.
Mr. Kueter.--involved in the contemporary debate. We have
published this book, though that did take a more historical
view of the questions that you raised.
Mr. Rothman. Fair enough. I am going to save my 14 seconds
unless there is another comment, Mr. Maassarani.
Mr. Maassarani. I just wanted to say that our report is
replete with the kind of examples that you are asking for.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rothman. I am now going to recognize our colleague and
friend from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, for five minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much. I am dismayed
that when we ask you for specific examples that you couldn't
come up with any. I mean, you are coming up with an unnamed
source and coming up--give me a couple names out of there and
say Dr. so and so said that on this occasion I had a scientific
study that I was not permitted to publish or was not permitted
to submit for people to look at. And give me the examples, and
I am ready to take a look. Give me three examples. If you
couldn't do it just a minute ago, send them to my office. I
will be happy to examine it. The answers you gave were,
obviously were not satisfactory.
Mr. Rothman. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Sure. Sure.
Mr. Rothman. When the panelists said that 21 percent and
three out of five responded that they experienced some
censorship or pressure to change their findings or their
findings were changed without prior notice, does the gentleman
say that, deny that those findings or reports are correct?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah, I do, because I will suggest to you
that when you take polls among people, how you ask a question
and then how you analyze the answer makes all the difference in
the world. And whether or not that person, for example, if
someone says, do you think that there should be more research
money on global warming, and the scientist says, why, yes, I
do, and I think it is really discriminatory against our group
of people who are responsible for researching global warming,
the fact that they don't have a higher budget. Well, everybody
wants a higher budget, and that analysis, giving him as an
example, as see, here is a guy who is repressed. Well, this may
be what we are having here, but I will be very happy, by the
way, please submit to me, and I will give you a chance to get
me the exact, if you have a specific example, give me three
specific examples. I will be open-minded about it. And, again,
I agree with my friend, this should be an open debate. My major
argument today is not that we in some way should overlook if
there has been some suppression of the argument on, by this
Administration, we should overlook that. I would never suggest
that. I am suggesting that we have suppression of this debate
on the other side.
And, again, if you have evidence that they are doing
something wrong, specifically, rather than giving me some
polling or some unnamed source who can say anything because he
is anonymous, okay. Go right ahead. If you got some examples, I
will, write them down.
Mr. Maassarani. Sure. Let me just say that they are unnamed
for a reason, and a number of our sources are unnamed, and
unfortunately, I can't disclose their----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, the point is that we have been, like
the Administration has been here seven years or six years now
total, and if there were people who were in there facing this,
there would be enough people on the outside to find someone who
has been willing to speak up without fear of losing their job.
There is always, you know, people always say things anonymously
and say, well, I just can't say it publicly because I will lose
my job. That is not a source to base judgments on. I can tell
you that right now. There is a lot of other people on the
outside who, if there was that repression going on, could come
out publicly and say, when I was there, this is what happened.
Mr. Maassarani. Well, if it is very important to you, I can
perhaps arrange for you to contact that source if you can
ensure their----
Mr. Rohrabacher. No, no.
Mr. Maassarani.--confidentiality as well.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Give me the names of several people. Give
me the names----
Mr. Maassarani. Yes. I am ready to do so, sir, right now.
Mr. Rohrabacher.--of three people. Do it on the record for
Pete's sake.
Mr. Maassarani. Tom Knutson is a scientist who has had a
media request denial.
Mr. Rohrabacher. A media request denial.
Mr. Maassarani. Denied.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Maassarani. On three occasions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Has he had other requests that were
granted?
Mr. Maassarani. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh, there you go. Okay.
Mr. Maassarani. So some requests are okay and others are
not.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Maassarani. Weatherald has had four press releases
squashed.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Maassarani. And Christopher Millie, Weatherald is also
from NOAA, and Christopher Millie from USGS----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Maassarani.--has had two press releases squashed.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So we have----
Mr. Maassarani. Three examples.
Mr. Rohrabacher.--so you are suggesting that because
someone is not permitted to send out a press release, now you
are saying a press release. With the name of the governmental
agency on top of the press release? They were denied that? And
that is an example of suppression?
Mr. Maassarani. When it is research that this scientist----
Mr. Rohrabacher. No, that is not suppression at all. If
someone is, wants to send his research out to make sure that
other scientists know about it, becomes part of the public
debate, that is a lot different than sending out press
releases.
Mr. Maassarani. These press releases are for the media to
pick up on important research conducted by federal scientists.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Important research as, according to that
researcher. There may be other scientists who disagree totally
with that position. Now, you want to, you think that the
Government should be sending out dueling press releases? Is
that what it is?
Mr. Maassarani. No. These are press releases that mark the
release of studies in peer-reviewed journals.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, that is what I am----
Mr. Maassarani. Each one of these press releases----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Maassarani.--I am referring to.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And they were released in the peer, in the
journals?
Mr. Maassarani. Yes. They were----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh. Okay.
Mr. Maassarani.--published in the journals.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So here we have----
Mr. Maassarani. So other scientists found out about it but
not the media.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So you are ignoring----
Mr. Maassarani. Or the public.
Mr. Rohrabacher.--the fact that the lead scientist from the
Department of Energy was sacked when he came in by Al Gore and
the fact that they, that a guy who can actually publish his
findings in a peer-review journal is being repressed because he
can't send out a press release with the name of the
organization on the top.
Mr. Rothman. The distinguished gentleman's time is, for
this round, concluded.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You may have an example for us that you
might want to put on the record. I mean, Dr. McCarthy.
Mr. Rothman. While I think that any active injustice is
something to be criticized, condemned, and fixed, those that
are farther back in history may be ones we cannot correct, but
those acts of injustice or bad policy or bad behavior by people
who are still in office I think are more relevant to this
committee since we have it within our power as a coequal branch
to check and balance any abuses by any other branch.
Would any of you gentlemen like to talk about in more
detail the meaning of my colleague and friend from California
talks about or implies some insignificance to the squashing of
a press release? First of all, is that all we are talking
about, squashing of press releases, and what is the
significance of these, of this, of these restrictions? Dr.
McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. No. We are talking about much more than the
squashing of press releases. I gave you some examples where
people were told they could not use the words, ``climate
change,'' ``global warming,'' and the like. I will report
documents with names, 70 such sources. You can check those, and
I think to somehow make reference to someone who was fired some
years ago and circumstances that we can't possibly reconstruct
at this point or to suggest that a Dutch and Italian scientist
were not getting their grants, I mean, my last four grant
proposals were turned down. I am batting about one out of five.
I have never suspected that there is some political motivation.
I am not writing proposals that deal specifically with this
subject. No one has ever told me, any of the federal agencies
that if I did or didn't funding would be different.
I think you need to also look at how research funding
works, and it is a review process that involves experts in the
community. The decisions are made by program managers and study
panels. I have worked extensively in such review analyses of
panels of the National Science Foundation. I cannot think of
any time in which there was ever any policy by the directorate
of the foundation or the foundation in general or something
that was thought maybe coming on high that said this is the
kind of research we should be supporting or the kind of
research we should not be supporting.
And perhaps I could explain that the way scientists get
their work supported is not to write a proposal saying I want
to go out and prove that something that people think is right
is right. You get it funded because you say I think there is
something wrong with our conventional position, and I am going
to prove it. And that is what gets funded.
Mr. Rothman. Doctor, is there any evidence, or any member
of the panel, that there was a concerted effort or a conspiracy
or a matter of agreed-upon policy by, at the highest levels of
the Administration to confine comments by scientists in federal
employ or to censor their work? I mean, how high up does it go,
or was it, were these the acts of renegade members of the Bush
Administration?
Mr. Maassarani.
Mr. Maassarani. This depends a little bit on how you would
define a conspiracy. I think we do have high-level signals as
is documented in the report that comes down. We can only infer
how systematic these signals are and how much their affect has
been. It definitely seems that White House offices are sending
these signals through political appointees at the agencies and
public affairs offices to--and in some very clear instances to
suppress certain communications by scientists. I am not
prepared to call this a conspiracy with everyone involved at
the high levels and the low levels against the scientists, but
certainly there is something of concern going on.
Mr. Rothman. Mr. Kueter, can you comment, although you
haven't made a study of the last six years, do you have an
opinion on this?
Mr. Kueter. Well, your colleagues in another committee in
this Congress posted the deposition of Phil Cooney to their
website as a product of a hearing that they had where he
participated a few weeks ago. I would suggest you take time to
read that lengthy document, because I think it reveals quite
plainly that the proposition that has been offered doesn't
exist in the sense of there being high-level efforts in a
coordinated attempt to suppress scientific discussion of
climate issues.
Mr. Rothman. But do you have any view as to, I hear you on
the high level, the lack of high-level coordinated policy on
this matter, but do you have any information, evidence, or
opinion as to whether these examples cited by these three other
gentlemen did not take place in the Bush Administration in the
last six years?
Mr. Kueter. I have no basis to judge the credibility of
those claims, having not reviewed their studies in any great
detail for that purpose.
Mr. Rothman. I thank you. I think we have done it, and let
me say this. I am going to be looking forward to reading the
recommendations in each and every one of you gentlemen on how
to prevent the intimidation, censorship, or mischaracterization
of scientific findings by federally-employed scientists by
members of the Federal Government.
I want to thank the witnesses again and under the rules of
the Committee the record will be held open for two weeks for
Members to submit any additional questions they might have to
the witnesses. And if there is no objection, the witnesses are
dismissed with our gratitude, and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
<SKIP PAGES = 000>
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Sheldon Rampton, Research Director, Center for Media and
Democracy, Madison, Wisconsin; Co-author, Trust Us We're
Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your
Future
Questions submitted by Chairman Brad Miller
Q1. Why should the Congress care that an industry or major
multinational corporation funds a campaign of public relations to spin
science? Is this more than just an exercise of 1st Amendment rights?
A1. In the case of the tobacco industry, courts have found that the
industry's efforts to spin science reached the level of actual fraud
which violated the law. It is one thing to publicly espouse a
particular interpretation of scientific evidence when the scientific
community itself is still divided over differing interpretations. It is
another thing entirely to manufacture the APPEARANCE of doubt when the
scientific evidence has become overwhelming. This was the case with the
link between smoking and lung cancer, and has now become the case with
respect to the link between human-produced greenhouse gas emissions and
global warming. The tobacco industry's own internal documents show that
industry executives did understand the true state of the scientific
evidence, making its public statements to the contrary deliberate
deceptions. The same thing appears to be true with respect to the
current state of knowledge regarding global warming, and there are
numerous examples of companies (such as the pharmaceutical industry)
deliberately suppressing the publication of data that conflicts with
their marketing claims about the safety and efficacy of their products.
These actions cannot reasonably be interpreted as merely the free
expression of opinion. They constitute deliberate deception of the
public and should not be tolerated.
Corporations are not allowed to deliberately deceive their
investors by withholding or falsifying information about business
losses, pending lawsuits or other facts which have a bearing on
assessing the risks of investing in them. I see no reason why they
should be allowed to deliberately deceive the general public by
withholding or falsifying information about the risks which their
activities pose to the environment or public health.
Beyond the question of whether deliberate deception is involved, I
think the public also has a right to know who is funding the science
which is used as the basis for decisions that affect the public.
Companies certainly have the right (and indeed, a responsibility)
to fund research into the safety and efficacy of their products. This
funding does not always create bias, but it is a strong indicator of
potential bias. Numerous studies have found that research funded by a
company which makes a particular product tends to exaggerate the
benefits and downplay the hazards associated with that product. This
doesn't necessarily reflect fraud on the part of the company or the
researcher. It may simply mean that they are genuinely excited about
the positive potential of the product and have an unconscious bias that
influences their conclusions. I think it is problematic, however, when
industry-funded research is presented to the public without full and
prominent disclosure as to its source of funding.
When the public is told that eating oat bran lowers cholesterol, it
should also be informed that the research reaching that conclusion was
sponsored by Quaker Oats. It is entitled to know that the ``Princeton
Dental Resource Center,'' which claimed that eating chocolate actually
reduced cavities, was financed by the M&M/Mars candy company and was
not a part of Princeton University.
Q2. Can you shed light on how we should think about the differences
among non-profit public interest organizations that hire scientists and
engage in public information campaigns? Some argue that since there are
groups on all side of all issues, with funding behind them, it makes no
difference whether the donors are public-minded citizens or
corporations with a material interest in a particular policy path? Is
there any difference in your mind between those two kinds of cases?
A2. I don't think it is true to suggest that comparable funding is
available to groups ``on all side of all issues.'' Aggregate data about
the funding sources of science is hard to come by, but we can get a
good idea of the resources available to various groups by looking at
data on political giving. According to the Center for Public
Integrity's database of political giving, for example, the oil and gas
industry gave $19,090,042 to national political candidates during the
2006 election cycle and spend $72,492,544 on lobbying. By comparison,
environmental groups gave only $514,759 to electoral candidates and
spent $7,687,264. That's a 37-to-1 ratio in political campaign giving,
and more than a 9-to-1 ratio in spending on lobbying. The National Beer
Wholesalers Association alone gave $2,946,500, and that's only part of
the alcoholic beverages industry. I haven't been able to find
statistics on the political giving by groups concerned about the
problems related to alcohol consumption such as Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, but I'm sure it is minuscule by comparison. The sum total
spent on lobbying by all single-issue ideological groups combined--pro-
choice advocates, anti-abortionists, senior citizens, and a variety of
other groups--was $113 million. By contrast, the health care industry
alone spent $338,441,211, and corporate-sector lobbying for all
industries combined was more than $2.3 billion.
As these figures suggest, industry groups have much more money to
spend on shaping public opinion and public policy than non-profit
public interest organizations, and this applies as well with respect to
hiring of scientists for public information campaigns.
Environmental groups and other issue-advocacy organizations
certainly do hire scientists and make scientific arguments to promote
their policy goals, and it is certainly fair to expect that their
scientists are as susceptible to bias as industry scientists.
However, these groups have a lot less money with which to promote
biased science than the corporate sector. As a practical matter, the
biases that we need to worry about the most are the biases held by
people who have the money and power to influence policies.
Question submitted by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
Q1. In your testimony you illustrate how industry influences the media
through surrogate organizations. Have you looked into whether or not
advocacy organizations use the same techniques?
A1. As I stated in my answer to the second question by Chairman Miller,
the scientific claims made by advocacy organizations should be greeted
with the same expectations of tendentious bias that should be applied
to claims made by industry-funded scientists. However, the specific use
of ``surrogates''--by which I mean the use of scientists as third-party
spokespersons without disclosure of their industry sponsorship--is
something that advocacy organizations rarely if ever do. I cannot think
of a single instance where a group such as Greenpeace or the Center for
Science in the Public Interest or the National Right to Life Committee
or the National Rifle Association has sponsored a scientist to act as
their spokesperson while concealing that sponsorship. To the contrary,
most advocacy organizations actively publicize their relationship with
the scientists in their employ.
The reason for this is simple: Advocacy organizations have no
motive to conceal their sponsorship of scientists. A typical advocacy
organization seeks funding from the public, and it wants potential
donors to believe that it is doing a great deal and accomplishing a lot
with their contributions. If a group like Greenpeace hires a scientist
to produce a report on global warming, therefore, it has a strong
incentive to inform people that it has done so. Moreover, there is no
advantage to concealment. A scientist's affiliation with a group like
Greenpeace does not diminish the credibility of that scientist's claims
in the eyes of the general public (and especially not in the eyes of
potential Greenpeace donors) in the same way that a scientist's
credibility may be diminished if he is known to be working for
ExxonMobil.
There is, however, a related problem of third-party surrogacy
related to advocacy organizations. Many think tanks and advocacy groups
are themselves used as surrogates for undisclosed interests, in the
same way that individual scientists are used for this purpose. For
example, the Philip Morris tobacco company created a group called The
Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) to publicly dispute the
science linking secondhand cigarette smoke to lung cancer. The company
went to great lengths to conceal the fact that TASSC was created by one
of its public relations firms and funded almost entire with corporate
grants. There are many groups of this type--the ``American Council on
Science and Health,'' ``Citizens for the Integrity of Science,'' or
``Consumer Alert''--which receive most of their funding from corporate
sponsors rather than individual donors while declining to disclose the
identity of their actual funders.
My organization, the Center for Media and Democracy, has long
advocated that nonprofit organizations which receive tax-exempt status
should be required, as a condition for tax exemption, to disclose a
list of all of their significant institutional funders.
Just as the public has a right to know who is funding the
scientific research that is used to influence public opinion and public
policy, the public also ought to know who is funding the work of other
groups that seek to influence them.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of
Biological Oceanography, Harvard University; Board Member,
Union of Concerned Scientists
Questions submitted by Chairman Brad Miller
Q1. Dr. McCarthy, in January 2007, a spokesman for ExxonMobil said the
company had stopped funding climate skeptic organizations such as the
Competitiveness Enterprise Institute. Do you know if ExxonMobil is
still funding a campaign of climate science doubt? How could we verify
what role they are playing?
A1. UCS's January 2007 Report, Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air, found that
between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil funneled close to $16 million to 43
groups working to manufacture uncertainty around global warming
science. Faced with public outrage over its cynical campaign to delay
action on global warming, ExxonMobil has launched a PR campaign aimed
at softening its image as a climate skeptic. The company finally
acknowledges the global warming threat and has cut funding for some of
the most egregious climate contrarians groups, including the
Competitive Enterprise Institute.
However, Exxon's 2006 World Giving Report reveals that twenty four
of the groups identified in the UCS report received an additional $1.6
million in funding in 2006. Four groups that received continued funding
in 2006 have consistently been at the center of ExxonMobil's fight
against action on global warming: The Heartland Institute, George C.
Marshall Institute, American Legislative Exchange Council and Frontiers
of Freedom. A leaked 1998 American Petroleum Institute memo linked
these groups to the Global Climate Science Communications Plan, a
multi-year, multi-million dollar strategy to manufacture uncertainty
around the science of global warming. Total 2006 funding to these
groups alone was $421,000 with a sum of over $3.6 million since 1998.
Q2. In his written testimony, Mr. Kueter charges that groups like UCS
and the British Royal Society are ``seeking to silence honest debate
and discussion of our most challenging environmental issue--climate
change.'' He also writes that ``the censorship of voices that challenge
and provoke is antithetical to liberty and contrary to the traditions
and values of free societies.'' Is there an effort to silence honest
debate? Dr. McCarthy, do you want to comment on these claims?
A2. UCS supports ``honest debate and discussion of our most challenging
environmental issue-climate change.'' The key word is ``honest'' as
some individuals have a long history of invoking outdated publications
that have been subsequently overturned by many additional peer-reviewed
papers that have pointed out the flaws in the original evidence,
methods, etc. This is ``cherry picking'' at its most dishonest. UCS
supports open dialogue and full discussion of all evidence-based
science that represents the current state of knowledge. In other words,
the UCS is totally committed to the antithesis of censorship and the
exact opposite of silencing honest scientific debate.
Q3. Dr. McCarthy, in your view does the Marshall Institute do
scientific work? How does it compare to the kind of work done by
research scientists in universities or even the work done by a body
such as the IPCC?
A3. University research findings typically result in a publication with
several research authors that is peer-reviewed by a few external
experts. Any errors in these publications typically become apparent
through formal ``comment'' and ``reply'' publications in the original
journal. The evaluation process occurs further when subsequent articles
are published in other respected journals that point out the errors or
confirm the original hypothesis. The IPCC effectively re-reviews the
published climate science on a more comprehensive scale. For example,
the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC in 2007 received and fully
considered around 30,000 review comments.
The IPCC's technical reports derive their credibility principally
from a, transparent, and iterative peer review process that is far more
extensive than that associated with scientific journals. This is due to
the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds
and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent ``review
editors'' who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and
appropriately resolved by the authors. Furthermore, according to IPCC
principles, lead authors are ``required to record views in the text
which are scientifically or technically valid, even if they cannot be
reconciled with a consensus view.'' Finally, it is important to note
that the authors of IPCC reports are nominated by national governments,
and the final IPCC reports are approved by delegations from more than
one hundred nations (including the U.S.A. and all other industrialized
nations).
Several organizations, some non-profit and others with links to
commercial interests, endeavor to translate climate science into forms
that are more accessible to the general public and the policy
community. When a report from any such group, including the George C.
Marshall Institute, appears to provide a new interpretation or
synthesis of findings (since most of these organizations do not conduct
original scientific research) it is important to ask who authored the
report, by whom was it reviewed and what are these individuals'
credentials. If authors and reviewers are not named, if the process by
which the report was written and reviewed seems opaque or if the
authors of a climate report do not have the stature of IPCC authors,
then one needs to be cautious, especially if the intent of the report
is to challenge conventional science.
Q4. Dr. McCarthy, some people seem to have the impression that the
IPCC and various National Academy statements reflect ``consensus''
views that ignore the work of scientists who hold other views. Are they
correct?
A4. The word ``consensus'' is often invoked, and sometimes questioned,
when speaking of IPCC reports. In fact, there are two arenas in which a
consensus needs to be reached in the production of IPCC assessments;
one is the meeting of the entire IPCC, in which unanimity is sought
among government representatives. Even though such consensus is not
required (countries are free to register their formal dissent),
agreement has been reached on all documents and ``Summary for Policy-
makers'' (SPMs) to date-a particularly impressive fact.
Consensus is also sought among the scientists writing each chapter
of the technical reports. Because it would be clearly unrealistic to
aim for unanimous agreement on every aspect of the report, the goal is
to have all of the working group's authors agree that each side of the
scientific debate has been represented fairly.
IPCC ensures that the scientific credibility and political
legitimacy of its reports represents fairly the range of scientific
understanding of climate change. To this end, the IPCC provides several
channels for input from experts along the entire spectrum of scientific
views, including those of statured scientists who do not expect large
future anthropogenic effects on climate.
First, accredited NGOs from all sides of the issue are welcome as
observers at the opening plenary session and some other sessions over
the course of the report production cycle. In addition, well-known
contrarians can and do become contributing authors by submitting
material to lead authors, and play advisory roles for their governments
by working with government representatives to revise and approve the
final SPMs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Edwards, P., and S. Schneider. 1997. Climate change: Broad
consensus or ``scientific cleansing''? Ecofables/Ecoscience 1:3-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The presence of climate change experts from industry and
environmental organizations in the assessment process also illustrates
the IPCC's desire to seek input from outside traditional research
institutions. Industry examples have included representatives from the
Electric Power Research Institute and ExxonMobil. Environmental
examples have included representatives from Environmental Defense, the
Natural Resources Defense Council, and others all over the world.
Climate contrarians frequently claim that the IPCC produces
politically motivated reports that show only one side of the issues.\2\
Given the many stages at which experts from across the political and
scientific spectrum are included in the process, however, this is a
difficult position to defend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Masood, E. 1996. Head of climate group rejects claims of
political influence. Nature 381:455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions submitted by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
Q1. Your organization receives a substantial amount of money from
private foundations.
a. Does that money come with the strings attached?
b. Do you think ExxonMobil's contributions to Stanford, Yale,
Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Columbia, the University of Texas, and
Carnegie Mellon came with strings attached?
c. Do you think those contributions influence those
institution's work?
d. Why do you think similar contributions will impact the
organizations in your report?
A1. The majority of grants to the Union of Concerned Scientists from
private foundations are designated for specific projects as described
in the grant proposal. Most importantly, the genesis for the project
lies with UCS, not the foundation. UCS writes proposals for various
projects which are funded only if the foundation decides the proposal
is in line with its priorities.
In the UCS report Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air there is a comparison
between the large donations by ExxonMobil to university research
compared to the relatively smaller proportion given to organizations
that have historically misrepresented scientific understanding about
climate change. For example the report notes:
``In its most significant effort of this kind, ExxonMobil has
pledged $100 million over ten years to help underwrite Stanford
University's Global Climate and Energy Project. According to
the program's literature, the effort seeks to develop new
energy technologies that will permit the development of global
energy systems with significantly lower global warming
emissions.''
The UCS report does not express any concerns about the value or
independence of the work done by these academic institutions.
Similarly, the report does not directly claim that ExxonMobil's
contributions to organizations that have a record of misrepresenting
the current knowledge about the science of climate change were an
attempt to influence the views or writings of those groups. Rather, our
claim is that ExxonMobil's funding of these groups serves to amplify
the misleading messages of these groups and confuses the public on the
climate issue.
Q2. It is important to separate scientific interference from policy
guidance. You included the following question in your survey:
``Question 6, The U.S. Government has done a good job funding climate
change research.'' How does a budget question equate to scientific
interference?
A2. Our survey was designed to obtain information about the general
work environment for U.S. Government climate scientists, and as such,
not every question addressed the problem of direct political
interference in the work of scientists. Reducing funding for a
particular line of research does not necessarily equate to direct
political interference in science, and this question was not asked with
that inference in mind.
However, the results of this question (more than half of the
respondents disagreed that the U.S. Government has done a good job
funding climate change research) and the large number of essay
responses on the topic of funding may be taken as supporting evidence
for a funding crisis in federal climate science. When adjusted for
inflation, federal funding for climate science has fallen since the
mid-1990s.\3\ A 2005 report by the National Research Council (NRC)'s
Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space concluded that
our system of Earth-observation satellites is at ``risk of collapse''
and is jeopardized by delays and cancellations of several planned NASA
satellite missions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007.
Climate Change Science Program Budget, by Agency. Online at http://
www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ccsp07cht.pdf
\4\ National Research Council, Committee on Earth Science and
Applications from Space. 2005. Earth Science and Applications from
Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve the Nation. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a statement earlier this year, the Board of Directors of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) echoed the
concerns of the NRC committee and called upon Congress and the
administration to implement the NRC recommendations ``for restoring
U.S. capabilities in Earth observations from space to acceptable
levels.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ AAAS Board Statement on The Crisis in Earth Observation from
Space. April 28, 2007. Online at http://www.aaas.org/eos
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-quality data about our climate is the crucial first ingredient
to understanding the science of climate change and crafting effective
policies for dealing with the threat.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Tarek F. Maassarani, Staff Attorney, Government
Accountability Project
Questions submitted by Chairman Brad Miller
Q1. Mr. Maassarani, could you elaborate on your observation that media
policies were often driven from offices in the White House complex?
A1. Most prominently, our report detailed numerous instances in which
White House executive offices are involved in the editing and clearance
of scientific reports. To what extent the White House has interfered
with media communications, and in particular shaped media policies, is
less concretely established. Our report documents several examples
where the White House was connected to practices that restricted media
communications. Consider, for example, an e-mail dated June 13, 2005,
in which National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) public
affairs officer Kent Laborde tells a NOAA senior scientist
Venkatachalam Ramaswamy:
CEQ [Counsel on Environmental Quality] and OSTP [Office of
Science and Technology Policy] have given the green light for
the interview with Ram. They had me call Juliet [Eilperin, the
reporter who requested the interview] to find out more
specifics. She will be asking the following:
<bullet> what research are you doing with climate
change
<bullet> what research has been encouraged or
discouraged by the administration
<bullet> what interaction has he had with the
administration
<bullet> does he have free reign to conduct the
research her [sic] wants to do
I told Juliette [sic] that he feels comfortable to comment
only on science and does not want to loose [sic] his scientific
objectivity by addressing policy/potitical [sic] questions. She
said since he is not a policy-maker, she wouldn't ask policy
questions.
Michele [St. Martin of CEQ] wants me to monitor the call and
report back to her when it's done. . .
Similarly, an anonymous public affairs officer at NASA told us how
he sat in on phone calls made between public affairs headquarters and
OSTP discussing control of certain scientists' media exposure.
Such incidents compounded by the lack of transparent decision-
making above the heads of scientists and mid-and high-level public
affairs staff suggest that the chain of command reaches up to the White
House for media communications dealing with sensitive science.
Nonetheless, with the exception of the Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP), this high-level involvement in routine media communications was
never stated or put forward as official policy--as distinct from
practice. In the case of the CCSP, which has significant representation
from White House offices on its communications working group, it has
been clearly stated as a matter of policy that CCSP staff is not
authorized to talk to the press. Rather, media inquiries are referred
to NOAA or the CEQ chairman.
Q2. In your review of e-mails and interviews with scientists, do you
always see the hand of the White House--either the President's Council
on Environmental Quality or the Office of Science and Technology
Policy--behind climate change suppression efforts?
A2. As discussed above, there is limited direct evidence of White House
involvement with climate change suppression efforts in our FOIA and
interview record. What we have found however suggests that this is not
because these efforts do not exist, but because they are opaque and
evasive. White House involvement seems to occur by telephone or in
person, to which only a select few individuals within the agency are
privy. Although outgoing e-mail traffic from the agencies suggested
White House involvement, our FOIA obtained few if any e-mails from the
executive offices. As you are well aware, Waxman's staff has had
similar difficulties obtaining information about White House
communications with its agencies.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Jeff Kueter, President, George C. Marshall Institute
Questions submitted by Chairman Brad Miller
Q1. Mr. Kueter, when did the Marshall Institute receive its last
funding from ExxonMobil or its foundation?
A1. We received support from ExxonMobil in 2006.
Q2. Do you currently have a financial relationship with Exxon Mobil,
its foundation or any of its public relations firms to fund work on
climate science or any other issue.
A2. We have submitted renewal proposals to ExxonMobil in support of our
climate change and energy policy programs for 2007.
Q3. How did the Marshall Institute become aware that ExxonMobil was
funding policy organizations to support a climate science work? funding
from ExxonMobil or its foundation?
A3. The Marshall Institute's climate program began in 1989. The
Institute did not begin accepting corporate contributions until 1999
even though the Institute was accused of being ``corporate financed.''
A statement by a past Institute Executive Director explaining this
change in policy is available at http://www.marshall.org/
article.php?id=17, which is a reprint of an op-ed appearing in the Wall
Street Journal on July 2, 1997. I was not employed with the Marshall
Institute during this period and am not aware of the circumstances
surrounding the receipt of the first grant from ExxonMobil. A review of
the available records shows that the Institute prepared a grant request
to the Exxon Education Foundation for general operations support in
August 1999.
Q4. Have you or any other figures associated with the Marshall
Institute ever participated in a meeting or conference involving Exxon
Mobil representatives or representatives of its foundation to discuss
how to carry out your climate science work or to coordinate that work
among other organizations funded by ExxonMobil?
A4. I review the substance of our past activities and our plans for the
future at an annual meeting with a designated representative of
ExxonMobil. This meeting is held in conjunction with the submission of
our annual report on activities and request for renewal. Such meetings
are common practice. Our programs and activities are designed and
implemented independently of any supporter or interest Subsequently,
the Institute's climate program is independently reviewed and approved
by our board of directors. The Institute's Chief Executive Officer,
William O'Keefe, has an acknowledged private business relationship with
ExxonMobil. We participate in numerous meetings and conferences
discussing climate change, some of which involve sponsors or potential
sponsors.
Questions Submitted by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
Q1. In 2005 the Marshall Institute reported on the funding for climate
change research, in particular you contrasted the difference between
contributions from industry with those of private foundations and the
Federal Government.
A1. Yes, we published a report in 2005, Funding Flows for Climate
Change Research and Related Activities (http://www.marshall.org/
article.php?id=289), examining financial support by foundations and the
Federal Government to non-profit groups and universities for climate-
related activities. We were motivated to explore the efforts which are
often made to impugn the credibility by virtue of their associations
and financial relationships rather than scrutiny of their beliefs or
objective research.
Q2. Please walk us through your findings. In particular, how does
funding from industry differ with funding from private foundations?
A2. Our study compiled data on grants from private foundations to
nonprofit institutes for the period 2000-2002 and for Federal
Government expenditures over a range of years. Our main findings were:
<bullet> The study of climate change science and the policy
ramifications of climate change is a multi-billion dollar
enterprise in the United States.
<bullet> Private foundations distribute a minimum of $35-50
million annually to nonprofit organizations and universities to
comment on or study various elements of the climate change
debate. With respect to foundation grants, unlike many other
studies of the same topic, we limited our focus solely to those
grants specifically designated as supporting a climate change-
related effort. Given this constraint, our estimates are, if
anything, low.
<bullet> This support was significant for many of the
receiving institutions. Climate change-related projects
accounted for over 25 percent of the three-year total reported
grants and contributions received by 10 of the top 20
institutions. For six organizations, climate change grants
accounted for 50 percent of their reported grants and
contributions received.
<bullet> A cursory glimpse of the list of recipients of those
private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent by
groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and
who believe that climate change requires dramatic government
action.
<bullet> The U.S. Federal Government spent nearly $2 billion
to support climate change science programs in FY 2004.
<bullet> More than 2,000 separate climate change-related
grants were distributed by federal departments and agencies in
FY 2002, the most recent year for which comprehensive data is
available.
<bullet> Federal support for R&D in the environmental sciences
field has tripled in the past 20 years, rising from $1.2
billion in 1980 to $3.6 billion in 2002, according to data
available from the National Science Foundation.
<bullet> In the field of atmospheric science, for example,
federally funded R&D accounted for more than 80 percent of
total expenditures for nearly one-half of the top 30
institutions in the five-year period (1998-2002).
<bullet> If funding alone invariably affects findings and
opinions, then what should we make of the significantly greater
amounts spent by foundations and the Federal Government? The
American scientific enterprise is critically dependent on
funding from the Federal Government and without that support
would contract dramatically. While the growth in federal
support for R&D brings new opportunities, it also has resulted
in near complete dependence of individual researchers and
university programs on publicly-financed R&D. Yet, the focus
remains on the alleged distorting influence of corporate
funding on scientific results despite the fact that there are
powerful incentives to avoid such conflicts of interest. In the
end, if the alleged distorting influences of financial ties are
true, then they impact all participants in the marketplace of
ideas.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>