Very worth reading djf -- Political interference with scientific committees

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:42:31 -0500
> From: Don Norman <norman () nngroup com>
> Subject: Political interference with scientific committees
> To: dave () farber net
> Organization: Nielsen Norman group
>
> Dave
>
> Four colleagues of mine, all members of the National Research Council's
> Committee on Human factors, have written an article to be published in the
> Bulletin of the Human factors and Ergonomics Society, critical of the way
> that the current government is interfering with the selection of scientific
> experts on study panels. I think it deserves the wide circulation and
> discussion your list generates.  Alas, the article is really long, much
> longer than the normal material you circulate. And it is not available on a
> website. (I do have their permission to forward it to you.)
>
> I have pasted article from the Word file below. Do with it as you will.
>
> Don
>
> Donald A. Norman
> Nielsen Norman Group      http://www.nngroup.com
> norman () nngroup com        http://www.jnd.org
> Prof. Computer Science and Psychology
> Northwestern University, norman () northwestern edu
> ---------------------------
>
> Defending the Independence of the
> Science of Human Factors and Ergonomics
>
> By Raja Parasuraman, Peter Hancock, Robert Radwin, and William Marras
>
>
> This article continues the occasional series of reports on the activities of
> the National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Human Factors (CoHF). The
> CoHF is a standing committee of the National Academy of Sciences established
> to advise the federal government on various policy matters involving Human
> Factors and Ergonomics (HF/E). In this report we discuss recent developments
> concerning the imposition by the current administration of a political
> agenda upon the deliberations of science in general, and HF/E in particular.
> These disturbing developments raise a number of serious concerns that
> threaten the independence of the science of HF/E.
>
> The goal of politics is the pursuit of justice through the exercise of
> shared power.  The goal of science is the search for empirical truth. In
> principle, politics shares that goal. In theory science informs public
> policy decisions that are legislated; in practice, politicians often focus
> on the exercise of shared power. As a result, many feel that science and
> politics should be kept separated as much as is feasible, as in the
> separation of Church and State. Yet, in the past there have been political
> decisions that were made contingent upon information derived from the
> scientific state-of-the-art. At the same time, scientific study is not
> possible without drawing on the popular purse-the taxpayer's dollar-which is
> under the control of politicians. Much as some would like to maintain a
> pristine separation between science and politics, therefore, there is
> inevitable interaction, which must as a consequence, be monitored carefully.
> As scientists we are often loath to do this, for it means leaving the ivory
> tower of academia to sample the perceived muddy waters of politics.
>
> Recent events indicate that we must do so. The events are disturbing because
> they seriously threaten the independence of the science and practice of
> HF/E.  Our purpose here is not simply to apprise the membership of these
> developments but to solicit their active response to this situation, which
> we believe represents a dangerous trend that must be systematically opposed.
>
> In science, the degree to which one's opinion is influential is (or at least
> should be) contingent upon how one's ideas and notions conform to testable
> reality. Politicians sometimes create the reality for themselves and the
> power of opinion is contingent upon just that-power. Over the centuries, we
> have collectively observed the disastrous outcome when power seeks to
> impress its opinion on reality. From the inquisition of Galileo, through the
> famines of Lysenkoism, to the more recent pithy observations of Richard
> Feynman on the 'Challenger' disaster, we know that when political expediency
> triumphs over scientific knowledge we have trodden the first steps along the
> road to failure. It is not up to politicians to recognize this (after all,
> they are politicians). It is up to scientists to continuously bring this
> recipe for disaster before the public eye and this we seek to do here.
>
>
> A Dangerous Trend
>
> As described in the 15th November, 2002, issue of the journal Science
> (Ferber, 2002), the current administration has engaged in political
> screening of appointees to peer review study sections that are charged with
> evaluating the scientific merits of research proposals on HF/E issues in the
> workplace. One of the primary funding sources for research in HF/E is the
> National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Scientific
> proposals are reviewed by their different study sections which include those
> that examine occupational injuries. The Department of Health and Human
> Services which oversees these efforts has been accused of partisan actions.
> Specifically, "the department has rejected three people who were proposed by
> science administrators at the National Institute of Health (NIH) which
> manages the study section - "at least one" for her support of an ergonomics
> rule that was overturned last year by the Bush Administration." The article
> goes on to indicate who these individuals were and further discusses the
> process of 'screening' whereby potential study section members were quizzed
> as to their political opinions prior to appointment-or not. Of course, these
> activities go to the very heart of scientific independence. However, if this
> were only one case it might be an individual outlier and represent an
> exception. Unfortunately, this is not so (Rosenthal et al, 2002). There is
> now mounting evidence of systematic attempts to infiltrate political opinion
> into scientific deliberation.
>
> As one might imagine, this has become an extremely controversial issue with
> the standard fare of accusations and counter-accusations whirling around the
> political scene (see Weiss, 2003). However, when  prestigious scientific
> journals such as Science, Nature, and the New England Journal of Medicine
> express significant concern, we can see the HF/E issue as only one amongst
> many threats to the impartiality of scientific information. The editors of
> the Lancet are quoted as warning against the "growing evidence of explicit
> vetting of appointees to influential [scientific] panels on the basis of
> their political or religious opinions."  In part response to this concern,
> the CoHF, of which one of us (R.P.) is Chair, recently prepared a letter to
> Bruce Alberts, the President of the National Academy of Sciences, in order
> to express the present concerns. It reads, in part "Science must not be
> contaminated by politics. Our concern is with the precedent that such
> actions set. If these trends are allowed to continue, it is clear that
> science in our country will not be influenced by appropriate evaluations
> that are consistent with the scientific process and an essential search for
> truth, but rather will evolve to become an appendage to the opinion of
> whatever political faction temporarily holds sway" (Parasuraman, 2003).
>
> When political pressure infiltrates the peer review process by excluding
> otherwise qualified scientists because of their political views, by
> "stacking the deck" with only those scientists who support the current
> Administration's political agenda, the scientific process becomes
> contaminated. Such single-sided bias in the selection of scientific juries
> inhibits the greater good of the pursuit of knowledge and suppression of
> scientific inquiry in certain areas by making political agendas part of the
> scientific review.
>
> The poet W. H. Auden wrote that, "The belief that politics can be scientific
> must inevitably produce tyrannies. Politics cannot be a science, because in
> politics theory and practice cannot be separated, and the sciences depend
> upon their separation.... Empirical politics must be kept in bounds by
> democratic institutions, which leave it up to the subjects of the experiment
> to say whether it shall be tried, and to stop it if they dislike it,
> because, in politics, there is a distinction, unknown to science, between
> Truth and Justice."
>
> In this short article we cannot examine all the ramifications of the issue,
> but we wished first to bring the seriousness of the situation to the
> membership.  Simple protest may be insufficient. One important question that
> emerges is "What can we as a professional Society do in the face of these
> developments?" The corollary is to examine what individual concerned
> scientists can do about such growing infringements.
>
> A Path Ahead
>
> Our aim in this article has been simply to point out the threat to the
> independence of the science of HF/E. We wish to allay the fears of any
> members by categorically stating that we are not engaged in a partisan
> effort. Our concern here is not with one particular administration as
> compared to another. Rather, our defense of science is without concern for
> specific incumbents since we would expect to protect the independence of
> science regardless of the stripe of those who held political power. Whenever
> this threat arises, which it does quite frequently, it is our responsibility
> for the greater good to protect the purity of process as much as is
> possible. Not in response to the momentary vagaries of any one political
> situation but for the fundamental betterment of all. In large part
> politicians come from a background in law where precedent holds significant
> sway and all is open to dispute. Science shares some of these
> characteristics. However, in respect of certain fundamental properties of
> reality, our knowledge is sufficiently sure that disputes, while always
> still possible, are largely puerile. An argument in science is not judged by
> its polemic qualities but by the degree to which it accords with empirical
> evidence. If certain politicians believe they can judge the issues of
> science from their own reference frame, they are sadly misinformed and our
> whole Society will pay a bitter price for such misjudgments.
>
> Our Society and all HF/E professionals in general would do well to monitor
> how other organizations, including scientific societies are addressing this
> matter.  For example, the Public Policy Office of the American Psychological
> Association has examined some of the issues concerning the appointment of
> scientists to advisory boards and study panels. There is also an ongoing
> investigation of the issues surrounding appointments to advisory councils
> that is being conducted by the Government Accounting Office (GAO).  The GAO
> has defined 3 researchable questions that will guide their investigation:
> (1) What is the role of advisory councils government-wide in helping shape
> policies and regulations? (2) What policies and procedures are in place to
> ensure that advisory councils provide balanced advice? (3) Are there any
> improvements to be made in those policies and procedures?  The GAO report,
> due in January 2004, will provide recommendations pertaining to the
> questions and may identify some of the actions that could be taken to avoid
> future allegations of inappropriate vetting of scientific advisors seeking
> appointment to advisory panels.  Individuals who may have information
> relevant to this issue may wish to contact the GAO as they conduct their
> investigation.  As these and other organizations look at the issues more
> closely, procedures for assuring that future scientific appointments are
> made in a fair and politically neutral way may emerge (Kennedy, 2003).
>
> In Conclusion
>
> The suppression of empirical truth in any form is anathema to science. When
> science is invoked in any fashion to inform public decision making, the
> critical premise is that no such suppression has occurred.  Attempts to
> pervert scientific input and promote partisan interests may succeed on a
> very brief time scale. This could accrue through the control or banning of
> dissenting opinion (see Michaels et al, 2002). However, the long-term costs
> of such a strategy are catastrophic. History tells us that the Empires of
> the past have fallen in ever shorter time frames. The current world
> leadership of the United States is predicated upon its technical superiority
> founded upon its pre-eminence in scientific achievement. Political
> interference to the process of scientific arbitration, whilst possibly
> viewed by certain politicians as a pragmatic necessity, is a sure recipe for
> disaster. There is no quicker way for America to lose its status in the
> world than to poison the wells of Science. The actions that have been taken
> by the present incumbents and noted here are sadly evident of this
> miscalculation. Hopefully, our collective voice can dissuade those presently
> in power from this tragic course.
>
> References
>
>
> Auden, W. H.  (1970). "Tyranny," A Certain World, New York, Viking Press.
>
> Ferber, D. (2002). HHS intervenes in choice of study section members.
> Science, 298, 1323.
>
> Kennedy, D. (2003).  "Well they were doing it too." Editorial, Science, 302,
> 17.
>
> Michaels, D., Bingham, E., Boden, L., Clapp, R., Goldman, L.R., Hoppin, P.,
> Krimsky, S., Monforton, C., Ozonoff., & Robbins, A. (2002). Advice without
> dissent. Science, 298, 703.
>
> Parasuraman, R. (2003). Issues of scientific integrity and political
> interference. Letter prepared to Bruce Alberts, President of the National
> Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
>
> Rosenthal, M.B., Berndt, E.R., Donohue, J.M., Frank, R.G., & Epstein, A.M.
> (2002). Promotion of prescription drugs to consumers. New England Journal of
> Medicine, 346 (7), 498-505.
>
> Weiss, R. (2003). Bush misuses science, report says. Washington Post, August
> 8th, 2003,  A15.
>
> Raja Parasuraman, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at the Catholic
> University of America, Washington DC.
>
> Peter Hancock, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at the University of Central
> Florida, Orlando, FL.
>
> Robert Radwin, Ph.D. is Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the
> University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
>
> William Marras, Ph.D. is Professor of Industrial Engineering at Ohio State
> University, Columbus, OH.
>
> All four authors of this article are members of the NRC Committee on Human
> Factors.   Thanks to Anne Mavor, Staff Director of the CoHF, and Geoff
> Mumford, Director for Science Policy of the Public Policy Office of the
> American Psychological Association, for their helpful comments.

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/