Maintaining the foundations of science.

I applaud the recent Editorial (“Science as smoke screen,” S. C. Trombulak et al. , 19 May, p. [973][1]) decrying changes to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 outlined in the bill H.R. 3824. I attended the mark-up of H.R. 3824 in the House of Representatives Resources Committee and witnessed firsthand the contentious nature of the bill, as well as the influence of strong political will on the success of this legislation. I am concerned that given the current political direction and climate in the United States, the suggestion that an independent scientific advisory panel be assembled to advise the U.S. Secretary of the Interior on relevant scientific issues misses an important point. Although such a panel could be a step in the right direction, unless an entirely new framework for federal advisory committees is established, this panel ultimately would be at the discretion of political appointees. Thus, a new panel would likely be prone to the same fate as the Department of Energy's Scientific Advisory board: disbanded after a closed-door meeting ([1][2]). The abolishment of this independent board, reportedly because it was being deemed unnecessary ([2][3]) after nearly 16 years of service, demonstrates the lack of value ascribed to scientific input by the current administration and their subordinates. We need to emphasize creative solutions that provide an avenue for science in relevant policy-making and to protect this channel from the whims of changing political pressures or personalities. In addition, all scientists must recognize these as attacks not only on science in policy-making, but on the scientific process more generally. If people no longer respect the scientific method as a valuable means for pursuing answers, as is the growing trend, we might not only see the disbanding of scientific advisory boards, but the disappearance of the foundations that support science in this country. 1. 1.[↵][4] 1. G. Brumfiel , Nature 440, 725 (2006). [OpenUrl][5][CrossRef][6][PubMed][7][Web of Science][8] 2. 2.[↵][9] 1. M. Janofsky , “Science Advisory Board Is Abolished,” N.Y. Times , 7 April 2006 (available at ). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1129508 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1. in text" [5]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNature%253B%2BPhysical%2BScience%2B%2528London%2529%26rft.stitle%253DNature%253B%2BPhysical%2BScience%2B%2528London%2529%26rft.aulast%253DHopkin%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%26rft.volume%253D440%26rft.issue%253D7085%26rft.spage%253D725%26rft.epage%253D725%26rft.atitle%253DWellcome%2BTrust%2Bfuelled%2Bbid%2Bto%2Bsave%2BBritish%2Bscience%2Btreasure.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1038%252F440725a%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16598220%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [6]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/440725a&link_type=DOI [7]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16598220&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F313%2F5785%2F297.atom [8]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000236548400009&link_type=ISI [9]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2. in text"