FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday,
January 5, 2009
Contact: Jeff Cronin, 202-777-8370, or Stacey Greene, 202-777-8316
Govt. Science Panels Skewed Toward Industry,
Says Report
CSPI Urges Legislation to Restore Balance
WASHINGTON—The National Coal Council issues
reports with titles such as “Coal: America’s Energy Future” and “The
Urgency of Sustainable Coal.” And while its web site loads, Aaron Copeland’s
“Fanfare for the Common Man” streams triumphantly over the image of an
American bald eagle. Coal boosterism from a K Street lobby shop?
In fact, the National Coal Council is an official government science panel
charged with advising the Secretary of Energy on the
feasibility
of clean coal technology. Not surprisingly, the panel has at least
15 members with financial ties to coal companies, whose fate depends on
the technology’s favorable review.
According to an
investigation
released today
by the nonprofit
Center for Science in the Public Interest, the NCC is similar to other
unbalanced science panels across the government that give industry inappropriate
influence over federal regulatory policy.
Government advisory committees that deliver
policy recommendations are supposed to be comprised of members that
represent a wide range of stakeholders, including representatives of regulated
industries, consumers and community groups. Government advisory committees
that advise agencies on
scientific issues are supposed to be made
up of scientists without financial ties to industry who can render independent,
objective advice.
Both types of committee are plagued with problems,
according to CSPI.
One committee
with a clear scientific mandate is the Wind Turbines Guidelines Advisory
Committee at the Department of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service. It
exists in part to recommend “scientific tools and procedures” for assessing
the risk of wind turbines to wildlife. Instead of being comprised
of scientists without financial interests in the panel’s work, the committee
is stacked with stakeholder representatives from the energy industry.
Another example is the National Organic Standards
Board at the Department of Agriculture, which determines what foods and
substances can be called organic. Despite the scientific mandate
of the board, the committee is mostly populated with representatives from
stakeholder groups, including corporations. (A General Mills representative
was designated as representing “scientists” until consumer groups complained.)
“Over the course of the Bush Administration,
government science panels have become increasingly influenced by industry,”
said CSPI lead investigator Kristin Stade, who authored the report. “Though
existing law requires balance, scientists without ties to industry are
becoming endangered species on many of these important panels.”
Perhaps in response to reports from the Government
Accountability Office, which in 2004 and 2008
criticized
agencies for naming industry representatives to science panels
,
the Department of Energy improperly reclassified industry representatives
as special governmental employees (SGEs)—the classification normally used
for scientists on the panels. On the Energy Department’s Nuclear
Energy Advisory Committee, several members with ties to the nuclear power
industry (as well as the sole representative from an environmental group)
were improperly reclassified as SGEs. Not surprisingly, the committee
wound up supporting a controversial industry-favored nuclear fuel reprocessing
program, according to the report.
Indeed, CSPI found a number of policy committees
that suffered from a lack of balance though they should have been comprised
of representatives from various stakeholder groups. A Sporting Conservation
Council, for instance, is dominated by representatives from hunting and
big game organizations. And at Agriculture, the Fruit and Vegetable
Industry Advisory Committee and the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee
are almost exclusively composed of members affiliated with those industries.
On science panels, agencies may grant waivers
to panelists with conflicts of interest if “the need for the individual’s
services outweighs the potential for a conflict of interest,” but CSPI
found waivers are often not issued. That was especially the case for Interior
and Energy department panels, where numerous conflicts of interest went
undocumented but apparently were informally waived.
To restore the integrity of the federal advisory
committee system, CSPI supports legislation that would correct many of
the chronic problems regarding balance, conflict of interest screening
and transparency. Similar legislation passed the House in 2008 but
died in the Senate. That legislation needs to be strengthened, reintroduced
and approved, the group says.
“The hundreds of federal agency advisory
committees whose deliberations affect the health and safety of the American
people face growing scrutiny by Congress, public interest organizations,
and members of the public,” according to the report. “The new administration
should act immediately to address long-standing deficiencies in the advisory
committee system.”
In addition to legislation, CSPI says an executive
order from incoming President Barack Obama could clarify and strengthen
the existing Federal Advisory Committee Act.