Much of the work of federal regulatory agencies relies on scientific research. For example, health studies about the effects of certain pollutants play an important role in regulatory decisions about how much pollution is unhealthy. But in recent years, the scientific process itself has been polluted with politics, with corporations suppressing scientific data that reflect badly on their products and processes, and government-sponsored scientific panels and advisory committees becoming increasing slanted toward industry at the expense of health, safety and the environment. The Center for Progressive Reform works to protect science and scientists from strong-arm tactics by government and industry. CPR scholars file comments with regulatory agencies, testify before congressional committees, publish opinion articles, and prepare white papers and reports. Recent CPR work on Sound Science includes:

  • Rescuing Science from Politics. Time and again in recent years, industry and their allies in Washington have distored science and pressured scientists.

    • Read "Safeguard lawsuits that potentially save lives," by Thomas McGarity, published in the Dallas Morning News, May 9, 2008.

    • Read Rena Steinzor and Matthew Shudtz's "Sequestered Science: Secrets Threatening Public Health," on why government-sanctioned secrecy in science makes for bad policy, bad science, and bad public health.

    • Read "Saving Science from Politicians," by Wendy Wagner and Rena Steinzor, published September 5, 2006 in the Baltimore Sun.

    • In August 2006, Cambridge University Press released, Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research, edited by Wendy Wagner and Rena Steinzor, featuring chapter contributions from CPR Scholars and others -- David Adelman, John Applegate, Carl Cranor, Holly Doremus, Paul Fischer, Donald Hornstein, Sheldon Krimsky, Thomas McGarity, David Michaels, Sidney Shapiro, Katherine Squibb, and Vern Walker. Rescuing Science from Politics debuts chapters by the nation’s leading academics in law, science, and philosophy who explore ways that the law can be abused by special interests to intrude on the way scientists conduct research. The high stakes and adversarial features of regulation create the worst possible climate for the honest production and use of science especially by those who will ultimately bear the cost of the resulting regulatory standards. Yet an in-depth exploration of the ways in which dominant interest groups distort the available science to support their positions has received little attention in the academic or popular literature. The book begins by establishing non-controversial principles of good scientific practice. These principles then serve as the benchmark against which each chapter author compares how science is misused in a specific regulatory setting and assist in isolating problems in the integration of science by the regulatory process. The book is available from Cambridge University Press and Amazon.com.

    • Read a summary of the policy solutions offered in Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research, edited by Wendy Wagner and Rena Steinzor, featuring chapter contributions from CPR Scholars and others.

    • Read CPR Member Scholar Wendy Wagner's December 2003 Sound Science proposal, as published in Science Magazine, with co-author David Michaels, research professor in the Department of Occupational and Environmental Health and Epidemiology at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services.

    • Read a brief summary by CPR Member Scholar Wendy Wagner of recent developments in sound science issues.

    • Read CPR President Thomas McGarity's article in Risk, the official journal of the Risk Assessment & Policy Association. "Public Participation in Risk Regulation," 1 Risk 103 (1990)

    • Read an edited transcript of a program held at the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice 2002 Administrative Law Conference, held in Washington, D.C., October 17, 2002, as published in the Environmental Law Review, March 2003. Speakers include CPR's Wendy Wagner and Sidney Shapiro.


    At the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee assessed the treatment of science and scientists by the Bush Administration. The resulting report, Politics and Science in the Bush Administration, finds numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings. Beneficiaries include important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups. Visit the associated website, Politics and Science.

  • Peer Review. A September 15, 2003 proposal from the Office of Management and Budget would require peer review of some studies used in the regulatory process. In CPR's view, the proposal exceeds OMB's statutory authority, would severely hinder the regulatory process, and by not requiring peer review of industry research, would badly tilt the regulatory process in favor of polluting industries.

    For more information on OMB's Peer Review Proposals, and the Data Quality Act, see our Regulatory Process page.

 

CPR Perspectives Series | Congressional Testimony | CPR Media Room | CPR Scholarship

Copyright © 2005 The Center for Progressive Reform