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

(

SHAPING THE MESSAGE, DISTORTING THE SCIENCE: MEDIA STRATEGIES TO INFLUENCE

SCIENCE POLICY

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34–337PS 2007

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

KEN CALVERT, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION AND OVERSIGHT

HON. BRAD MILLER, North Carolina, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BART GORDON, Tennessee

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

TOM FEENEY, Florida

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

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

(III)

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

Page

IV

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

(1)

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.

2

3

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 madefor-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

4

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 indiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:51 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 034337 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\I&O07\032807\34337 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
5

viduals 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 proglobal 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.

6

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

7

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:]

8

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 policymakers 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 PresidentElect 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

9

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

10

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 fenphen 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:]

11

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.’’

12

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 namebrand 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 proindustry 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.

13

1Merrill Rose, ‘‘Activism in the 90s: Changing Roles for Public Relations,’’ Public Relations

Quarterly, Vol. 36, no. 3 (1991), pp. 28–32. 2 Randall Rothenberg, ‘‘The Age of Spin,’’ Esquire, December 1996, p. 71.

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.

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.’’ 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

14

3David Hanners, ‘‘Scientists Were Paid to Write Letters: Tobacco Industry Sought to Discredit

EPA Report,’’ St. Louis Pioneer Dispatch, August 4, 1998. 4 Charles Ornstein, ‘‘Fen-phen Maker Accused of Funding Journal Articles,’’ Dallas Morning

News, May 23, 1999, p. 1A. 5 Ibid.

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

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

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 firstdraft 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

‘‘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. Naı ̈vete ́ 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 acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:51 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 034337 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\I&O07\032807\34337 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
15

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. 8For 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). 9 Jerry H. Berke, ‘‘Living Downstream’’ (book review), New England Journal of Medicine, No.

337 (1997), p. 1562. 10 ‘‘Medical Journal Apologizes for Ethics Blunder,’’ Washington Post, December 28, 1997. 11Sheldon 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.

tually 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

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

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

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

16

13Lisa 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. 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). 16Melissa B. Robinson, ‘‘Medical School Faculty Say Budget Cuts Are Hurting Teaching,’’ Associated Press, May 19, 1999.

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

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 na ̈ıve 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

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—

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). 18David Blumenthal and others, ‘‘Withholding Research Results in Academic Life Science,’’

Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 277, no. 15 (April 16, 1997). 19Drummond Rennie, ‘‘Thyroid Storm’’ (editorial), Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 277, no. 15 (April 16, 1997), p. 1242.

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

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

‘‘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

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

18

20 Ibid. 21Shenk, pp. 11–12. 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. 24 ‘‘Special Report: What Happens when Universities Become Businesses?’’ (Research Corporation Annual Report, 1997), p. 9.

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

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

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

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:

• 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 selecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:51 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 034337 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\I&O07\032807\34337 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
19

25P.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. 26Mildred 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. 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. 28M. 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. 29Dan Fagin and Marianne Lavelle, Toxic Deception (Secaucus, NJ: Birch Lane Press, 1996),

pp. 51–52.

tive publication or biased interpretation of results in manufacturer-associated

trials.’’ 25

• 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

• 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

• 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

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

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

20

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.

21

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 cochaired 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

22

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 ConVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:51 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 034337 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\I&O07\032807\34337 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
23

gress 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

24

1 References available in the full report, available at www.ucsusa.org/news/press¥release/

ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

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 Campaign1

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

25

the tobacco industry effort are also part of the ExxonMobil’s disinformation campaign.

Like the tobacco industry in previous decades, ExxonMobil has:

• Raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence;

• 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;

• Attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for ‘‘sound

science’’ rather than business self-interest; and,

• 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 fun- neled 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 changerelated 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

26

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.

27

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 policymakers 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:

• 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.

• 41 scientists (15 percent) personally experienced changes or edits during review that changed the meaning of scientific findings.

• 47 scientists (18 percent) personally experienced statements by officials at

their agencies that misrepresented scientists’ findings.

• 60 scientists (22 percent) personally experienced the disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to

climate.

• 97 scientists (36 percent) personally experienced new or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work.

• 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.

28

• 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:

• 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.

• Government scientists routinely encounter difficulty in obtaining approval for

official press releases that highlight research into the causes and consequences of global warming.

• 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.

• 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 poVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:51 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 034337 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\I&O07\032807\34337 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
29

liticized 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:

• 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).

• 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.

• 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:

• Increased fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles;

• A Renewable Electricity Standard requiring utilities to obtain 20 percent of

electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020;

• A shift in government energy support and incentives away from conventional

coal, oil, and gas toward clean, renewable energy sources; and,

• 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

30

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:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

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.’’

38

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

39

‘‘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.’’

40

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

41

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.

42

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:

• 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.

• 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.

• Agency directives asked scientists to provide anticipated media questions and

their expected answers prior to the interview.

• 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

43

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 preapproval. 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 midlevel 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.

44

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 publiclyfunded 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:

• 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.

• Develop a transparent communications policy at the Climate Change Science

Program (CCSP) and streamline the approval process for CCSP products and

communications.

• 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.

• 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.

• Ensure the timely and pro-active coordination of press releases and media

contacts so as to promote rather than limit the flow of information.

• Ensure that content editing and scientific quality control remain with qualified scientists and the peer-review process.

• 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.

45

• Establish accountability procedures that increase transparency and provide

for internal reporting of undue interference with science.

• Investigate and correct inappropriate policies, practices, and incidents such as

those described in this report.

GAP recommends that Congress:

• 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.

• Ensure that objective and independent science is the basis for policy-making.

• Strengthen its essential oversight functions with regard to the integrity of

communications about scientific research.

46

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:

• NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s reassuring rhetoric is of symbolic

value, demonstrating official respect for scientific freedom.

• 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.

• 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:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.’’

• 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.

47

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 policymakers. 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.

48

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 politVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:51 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 034337 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\I&O07\032807\34337 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
49

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). 3 Bob Ward, ‘‘Royal Society Letter to Nick Thomas, Esso UK Limited,’’ September 4, 2006.

ical 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.

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.

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. PoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:51 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 034337 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\I&O07\032807\34337 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
50

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.

litical 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, policymakers 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

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:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 cliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:51 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 034337 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\I&O07\032807\34337 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
51

5 Houghton et al., Climate Change 2001, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc¥tar/wg1/442.htm. 6 National Research Council, Climate Change Science, 1.

mate 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.

• 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.

• 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

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

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

52

7Daniel Boorstin, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America (New York: Harper &

Row, 1964). 8Michael Gough, ed., Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policy-Making (Palo Alto, CA: Hoover Institute Press, 2003). 9William Happer, ‘‘Harmful Politicization of Science’’ in Gough, Politicizing Science, 45–56;

Holman Jenkins, ‘‘Al Gore Leads a Purge,’’ Wall Street Journal, May 25, 1993.

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.

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

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.

53

10For 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). 11Gough, 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. 12See, for example, Kenneth Meier, Politics and Bureaucracy: Policy-making in the Fourth

Branch of Government (Wadsworth: Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1987), 101–110. 13Meier, Politics, 57–77. 14 Ibid., 102–103.

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

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

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 predate 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 MarVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:51 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 034337 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\I&O07\032807\34337 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
54

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¥release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html. 16See 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. 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. 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¥Wegman¥Report.pdf

shall 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:

• 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).

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

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

• 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.

• 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

55

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.

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.

• 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 changerelated 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

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.

56

22Ted Koppel, ‘‘Is Environmental Science for Sale?’’ ABC News Nightline Transcript, February

24, 1994.

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

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?

• 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.

• 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.

• Discontinue consensus documents. The push for consensus on important

science policy issues can mask important differences among scientists. Policymakers 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.

• 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.

• 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.

57

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.

58

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 wellestablished 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

59

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

60

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 sayVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:51 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 034337 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\I&O07\032807\34337 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
61

ing 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.

62

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 conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:51 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 034337 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\I&O07\032807\34337 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
63

cerned 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 forVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:51 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 034337 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\I&O07\032807\34337 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
64

ward 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.

65

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.

66

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.

67

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.

68

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

69

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.

70

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.

71

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.

72

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 reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:51 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 034337 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\I&O07\032807\34337 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
73

tractions 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

74

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.

75

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.

76

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 sciVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:51 Oct 19, 2007 Jkt 034337 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\I&O07\032807\34337 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
77

entists 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

78

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 highlevel 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?

79

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.]

(81)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

82

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 nonprofit 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

83

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—prochoice 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 industryfunded 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.

84

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.

85

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

86

1 Edwards, P., and S. Schneider. 1997. Climate change: Broad consensus or ‘‘scientific cleansing’’? Ecofables/Ecoscience 1:3–9. 2Masood, E. 1996. Head of climate group rejects claims of political influence. Nature 381:455.

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 Policymakers’’ (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

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.

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?

87

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. 5 AAAS Board Statement on The Crisis in Earth Observation from Space. April 28, 2007. Online at http://www.aaas.org/eos

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

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

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.

88

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:

• what research are you doing with climate change

• what research has been encouraged or discouraged by the administration

• what interaction has he had with the administration

• 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.

89

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:

• The study of climate change science and the policy ramifications of climate

change is a multi-billion dollar enterprise in the United States.

90

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• The U.S. Federal Government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate

change science programs in FY 2004.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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).

• 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.

(91)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387