Unpopular opinions need not apply.

The Editorial by D. Michaels et al. (“Advice without dissent,” 25 Oct., p. [703][1]) describes attempts by Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson to influence the advice the government gets from advisory committees by stacking their membership with scientists who share President Bush's views on science and health policy. The stories about efforts to manipulate committees that advise the government on such highly charged issues as genetic testing and childhood lead poisoning are troubling, but the manipulation extends even more deeply into the federal science establishment than they suggest. Secretary Thompson announced when the Bush administration took office that he wanted to conduct a review of Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) advisory committees and that nominations for membership on those panels would be frozen until his review was completed. Thompson's review includes not only the high-level panels that advise the DHHS on matters of policy, but also some peer-review study sections, which are also advisory committees under federal law. I am chair of one of the affected study sections, which reviews research grant proposals submitted to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and other agencies. The 2-year freeze on new memberships has complicated our work, but it was assumed that study sections, which are charged rather narrowly with advising federal agencies on the scientific merit of proposed research projects, were not the real targets and that we would eventually be allowed to continue with business as usual. This assumption has proven to be incorrect. Secretary Thompson's office recently sent word that three candidates nominated for permanent membership on the study section would not be confirmed. NIOSH's Director was allowed to nominate replacements for the three rejected candidates, however, rather than having to accept a slate named by Thompson's office. The secretary declined to give reasons for rejecting the three scientists nominated for membership on the study section. They are all established scientists who had served as temporary members for some time and whose qualifications had been duly reviewed and approved at every other level. The reasoning nevertheless seems clear in at least one case: One of the rejected nominees is an expert in ergonomics who has publically supported a workplace ergonomics standard. It is not clear how such views could affect public policy, except through a long, convoluted pathway in which a reviewer might favor a proposed project whose results, when the project was completed, could eventually be cited in support of a standard. But that is beside the point. In contrast to policy advisory boards, where the potential for political conflict is recognized and members are supposed to represent a range of views, study section members are selected for their expertise in research and may not consider the relevance of the projects they review to specific government policies. This level of political interference with peer review is an ominous precedent for research throughout the federal government. I am not aware of attempts to manipulate the membership of other DHHS study sections, but many aspects of human biology and medicine are controversial, and there is no assurance that the same tactics will not be used elsewhere. All scientists who have served as reviewers or rely on study sections for expert, unbiased reviews should be concerned, and so should the end-users of the knowledge that federally funded research generates. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.298.5594.703