Many have alleged that the Harper government has severely clamped down on the ability of Canadian government scientists to speak freely. After many rumblings, the alarm was sounded in early 2012, when UCS Senior Scientist and scientific integrity expert Dr. Francesca Grifo joined colleagues north of the border on a panel at the AAAS meeting in Vancouver. That summer, two thousand Canadian scientists went so far as to stage a lab coat march on the Canadian parliament. On a related note, federal librarians were given a new code of conduct that significantly discourages them from speaking their opinions–even on personal time.

The situation has escalated further since February 2013 when the University of Victoria and the Canadian NGO Democracy Watch issued a 128-page report detailing the muzzling charges and asked the Candian Information Commissioner to investigate the muzzling charges. She has agreed to do so. For more reading, see this article in Maclean’s  and this piece from David Suzuki.

Here’s what Ms. Atwood had to say:

“We live in difficult times. Of course, so has everyone down through the ages, but I’d argue that our times are difficult in new and different ways. Others at this event will address many of our difficulties or else they’ve already addressed them.

“I would like to speak about just one: the muzzling of the public servant Canadian scientists that we, the citizens pay for (applause)…and the shutting down of our research facilities across the country.

“This issue gets less attention than most, though the lack of attention is perhaps due to the fact that many people don’t understand how research science works and how it is linked to our own health and well-being. But it is a crucial issue, and the way our scientists are being treated, and the way our basic research facilities are being torched, especially those that monitor such things as air and water quality, go to the heart of what we are still pleased to call a democracy.

“If the powers that be don’t want us to know these things, they have two ways of keeping us in the dark. First, they can threaten the scientists working for us and paid for by us. They can slap on a muzzle, forbidding them to talk to anyone, such as reporters, unless they have cleared what they are going to say with a political vetter first.

“This has been done in Canada with the intent of keeping the scientists on message with the Conservative government’s agenda. See no evidence, hear no evidence, speak no evidence. That’s the policy. What we don’t know won’t hurt them.

“There are problems with objective, evidence-based science as well as every other human activity. Large companies aren’t the only entities to harbor dishonest activities. Science, too, has its cheats and liars. And yes, the collective entity called science sometimes gets things wrong, honestly.

“But real science is relentlessly self-critical. It relies on peer-review and the replicability of experiments. And self-criticism can only operate where there is freedom of expression. We must allow our scientists to speak freely. And very importantly, it is our right in a democracy to hear what our scientists have discovered.

“Taxpayers paid for this knowledge. Give us what we paid for.”

Photo: Lesekreis/Wikimedia Commons

“The process had been corrupted by political influence,” said Judge Korman at a hearing regarding the administration’s request for more time to appeal his original decision. Salon.com reported that the judge was unmoved by the administration’s arguments:

Korman repeatedly slammed his hand down on the table for emphasis, interrupting the government counsel’s every other sentence with assertions like, “You’re just playing games here,” “You’re making an intellectually dishonest argument,” “You’re basically lying,” “This whole thing is a charade,” “I’m entitled to say this is a lot of nonsense, am I not?” and “Contrary to the baloney you were giving me …” He also accused the administration of hypocrisy for opposing voter ID laws but being engaged in the “suppression of the rights of women” with the ID requirement for the drug.

This is not surprising. The law requires drugs to be approved solely on the basis of the best available science—which is as it should be. And because there is no logical justification for the administration’s continued stubborn refusal to accept the judgment of its own scientists and scientific advisers and every major medical body with expertise in this area (including the always-so-radical American Medical Association), Department of Justice lawyers are forced to make arguments that ignore the law and conflate moral arguments with scientific ones.

Fortunately, many newspaper editorial boards are seeing through the administration’s smokescreen. In addition to editorials praising the judge’s original decision (for example, here, here, here, here, and here), several editorial boards have weighed in over the past week.

I’ve compiled a sampling below. Feel free to leave others in the comments.

The Los Angeles Times: Obama’s Plan B Misstep
The Obama administration overstepped its legal authority — and injected politics into what should have been a scientific decision — when it ordered the FDA to limit the availability of a common morning-after contraceptive without prescription to girls and women 17 and older. The FDA had already evaluated the drug and determined that it was safe for females of all ages and should be available to all….The Justice Department’s decision, announced Wednesday, to appeal [Judge Korman’s] ruling is a mistake. Not only does it compound the administration’s first legal misstep, but it is a disappointing and disturbing attempt to limit contraceptive rights without any scientific justification for doing so.

The New York Times: Putting Politics Ahead of Science
Appearing before Planned Parenthood’s annual convention last Friday, President Obama pledged his continuing support for women’s reproductive rights. In a speech before the National Academy of Sciences on Monday, Mr. Obama promised to keep science a sphere “not subject to politics” or “skewed by an agenda.” On Wednesday, his administration betrayed both reproductive rights and science…the administration’s continued stubbornness…is bound to undermine Mr. Obama’s credibility when he calls for principled, evidence-based policy-making on other issues, like global warming. The Justice Department’s legal argument, moreover, is incoherent. In court documents, it claims that Judge Korman’s order improperly interferes with the F.D.A.’s “scientific judgments” pertaining to the drug approval process. But it was Ms. Sebelius’s interference with science that sparked Judge Korman’s ruling in the first place.

The Washington Post: The Legal Mess on Emergency Contraception
[The Obama Administration’s decision] leaves the FDA with a position inconsistent with the judgment of its scientific experts, who recommended unrestricted access. The Obama administration’s unprecedented decision to override those experts, Judge Korman wrote, was ‘arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable’…If Congress and the president want to consider whether the sale of emergency contraceptives to young teenagers has unique moral implications that demand special government restrictions, they should have that debate.

The Houston Chronicle: Plan B and Age Limits
Judge Edward R. Korman of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn held that the Obama administration’s age limit on Plan B was “politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent,” and should be overturned. The Justice Department is appealing this decision, but that is the wrong move both politically and for policy. Studies show that providing teens with access to Plan B does not increase sexual activity but does help prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortions. The American Academy of Pediatrics endorses providing Plan B over the counter for these very reasons, and both pro-choice and anti-abortion groups alike should find common cause.

The Tampa Bay Times: Plan B Appeal a Setback for Public Health
President Barack Obama told an audience at the National Academy of Sciences last month that his administration would not let politics interfere with science. Now the president has broken that promise. The Justice Department has announced that it will appeal a federal court ruling that grants unlimited access to emergency contraception for younger teens. What is certain is that Obama is sacrificing the reproductive freedom and health of girls by ignoring the evidence and playing politics.

The Louisville Courier Journal: Obama’s Birth Control Filibuster
In dodging a federal judge’s order to make the “morning-after pill” available over the counter to women and girls without age restrictions or prescriptions, the president appears to be doing exactly what he has scolded opponents for doing on hot-button issues: ignoring science [and] caving to political pressure…the president should heed his own words and get the nation out of the 1950s when it comes to women’s health.

The Spokane Spokesman-Review: Decisions on Plan B Must be Based on Science
The long, strange trip for an important drug continues, as politics keeps harassing science. On Tuesday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced it will allow the emergency contraceptive pill Plan B One-Step to be sold over the counter to girls as young as 15. The feds’ action came just five days before the deadline set by U.S. District Judge Edward Korman nearly a month ago. He tossed the previous age limit of 17, set by U.S Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, saying the FDA’s own scientists concluded that teens could handle the drug just as competently and safely as adults.

The Baltimore Sun: Plan B restrictions — better, but not best
In reality, the only outrage ought to be directed at the White House and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for not going far enough and lifting age restrictions entirely, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was ordered to do last month by a federal judge in New York who recognized that the Obama administration had put politics ahead of science. Instead, the administration has unwisely decided to appeal that order. The FDA’s own experts judged two years ago that Plan B is safe and effective and should be available to women of any age. But for some reason, Ms. Sebelius seems dead-set against it. In December 2011, campaign politics may have played a role when she decided that customers would have to be 17 years or older. But why now?

Bloomberg News: The Morning-After Pill Should Be Available to All Ages
By proposing two different age restrictions within the space of a year and a half, the administration only demonstrates how arbitrary both are. In their evaluation, experts at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research — including obstetrician-gynecologists and pediatricians — determined that adolescent girls understand that emergency contraception isn’t to be used routinely. If there is cause to think those experts are wrong or that there is some other measure of maturity that applies for emergency contraception, we haven’t been told of it…the court was right to side with science, leaving parents to establish their own moral guidelines.

The New Haven Register: FDA Morning After Pill Ruling Falls Short
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration fell far short of protecting young women when it announced Tuesday that the Plan B “morning after” emergency contraception pill would be moved from behind the counter of pharmacies to regular store shelves and that teens as young as 15 would be able to purchase it as long as they show proof of age. Scientific studies have shown that Plan B is safe for use by any female capable of getting pregnant, regardless of age.

The Santa Cruz Sentinel: Access to Contraception
“The Justice Department on Wednesday decided it would appeal a federal court ruling that would make so-called morning-after pills available without a prescription for girls and women of all ages. The announcement ignores the fact that two years ago, after reviewing all available research, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded that the most common form of the emergency contraception, Plan B One-Step, could be used safely and effectively to prevent pregnancy by girls and women of all ages, and that major medical groups have long recommended unrestricted access to the pill…The political maneuvering surrounding the morning-after pill dates back years.”

The Seattle Times: Obama administration should not put restrictions on Plan B
“The federal Food and Drug Administration says morning-after contraceptives are safe, including for adolescent girls. The drugs should be made available over the counter and without age restrictions…the president’s search for middle ground in the caustic emergency-contraception/abortion debate should not threaten the health and well-being of women and girls.”

Earlier this year, for example, the Senate passed an amendment offered by Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) that would restrict the National Science Foundation (NSF) from funding political science. Under the claim that funding the discipline “hold[s] little promise to save an American’s life from a threatening condition or to advance America’s competitiveness in the world,” the amendment passed. Although political science represents only a small fraction of the NSF funding budget, the American Political Science Association ominously warned of its potential impacts for science in general. In a public statement, the association said, “The amendment creates an exceptionally dangerous slippery slope… At risk is any and all research in any and all disciplines funded by the NSF. The amendment makes all scientific research vulnerable to the whims of political pressure.”

Representative Lamar Smith, Chair of the House Science committee, has proposed new criteria for how the NSF funds scientific research.

A Concerning Proposal

Now, the House Science Committee may soon push legislation that would undermine the peer-review process that the NSF currently uses to award funding for basic scientific research. The author, Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas), purports that the changes proposed in a “Discussion Draft” of the bill would “improve” the peer-review process, but researchers are expressing concern about the new criteria and what they mean for the future of government-funded science. Specifically, the bill draft that was obtained would require the NSF director to post on the NSF’s Web site, prior to any award, a declaration that certifies the research is:

1. … in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science;
2. … the finest quality, is groundbreaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large; and
3. … not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies.

While these provisions might sound benign, the rhetoric here, of course, is a trap. Scientists who resist congressional meddling can be labeled as elitist and out of touch. “Shouldn’t the American people have a say in how their tax dollars are spent?” thunder the politicians. “Do these scientists think they are above everyone else?”

Yet the people do speak. Through their representatives, in theory, the people determine how much money we will invest in science. Then we trust experts to dole out these precious resources for the maximum good. This is as it should be. I trust my doctor to tell me what medicine is best for an infection.

How Research Proposals Get Funded

To understand the effect this law would have if enacted, let’s take a look at the way the NSF funds proposals now. The NSF puts out requests for proposals on scientific topics—anything from computer science to geology. In response, the agency receives hundreds of research proposals for each funding opportunity from researchers all around the country (40,000 proposals per year of which 11,000 are funded). To sort through this daunting pile of original intellectual thought, the NSF brings in panels of scientific experts. The panels are comprised of researchers who volunteer their time and expertise to recommend the best proposals to fund. And how do they decide? It’s no small task.

The panelists read and discuss the merits and weaknesses of each proposal for two full days before developing recommendations to the NSF on which grants most deserve funding based on the criteria. And what criteria do they use?

Contrary to what the proposed bill text suggests, the NSF already does choose projects that score the highest on “intellectual merit” and “broader impacts.” Recognizing that sometimes researchers need to do a better job of explaining the potential impact of studies, the NSF in 2011 updated its review guidelines to require applicants to better outline the potential benefits of their research.

The National Science Foundation awards 11,000 grants per year to researchers across the nation.

The Value of Scientific Expertise

These benefits are best left determined by experts in the field. Members of Congress shouldn’t judge the value of proposals on chemical oceanography any more than I (an environmental engineer by training) should be able to judge the value of research proposals on theoretical physics. The truth is that many basic scientific research projects with no apparent application to the real world have proven to directly benefit society, but it might take an expert to recognize this.

Take SARS, for example. When Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome broke, scientists were able to identify and quickly respond to the rapidly changing disease. Roberta DeBiasi, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s National Medical Center cites the outbreak of the SARS virus as an example of the importance of basic science: “Had scientists not been studying a related corona virus similar to the one that caused SARS, they would have lacked critical information that helped them understand the virus and contain its spread.”

The NSF itself has created a Nifty Fifty List that highlights the many applications of the research it has funded—scientific progress from which we all enjoy the benefits. The far-reaching advances include everything from tumor detection to internet access for persons with disabilities to DNA sequencing and disease tracking to Doppler radar, fiber optics, and web browsing. The list goes on and on.

The Dangers of Politicizing Science

President Obama reinforced the importance of independent scientific inquiry in a speech he made on April 29 at the 150^th anniversary of the National Academy of Sciences. He stated, “In all the sciences we have to make sure that we are supporting the idea that they aren’t subject to politics; they are not skewed by an agenda … that we make sure we go where the evidence leads us.” Most importantly, he said, government and scientific leaders need to “make sure [research] does not fall victim to political maneuvers.”

These attempts to stifle scientific inquiry are born of cynicism about the scientific process. They are born of mistrust about how science, and the peer-review system, work. This line of thinking is bad for science and bad for democracy, and should be vigorously resisted.

Scientists were left holding the bag when the Coburn amendment passed. We must be more vigilant to ensure that this is not the case again.

A few weeks ago, I celebrated as a federal judge ordered the FDA to follow the medical evidence and make the emergency contraception known as “Plan B” available over the counter without restrictions. Under both President Obama and his predecessor, the decision had been thoroughly politicized. I thought that the judge’s ruling would provide the Obama administration with political cover. Surely they would respect the decision.

I was wrong. This week, the Obama administration gave science a one-two punch.

Late yesterday, the FDA announced it would approve non-prescription sales for women fifteen years and older for sale on store shelves. Buyers will still be required to prove their age.  This is certainly an improvement—more older women with IDs will have access to the drug at more times (not just from a pharmacist when the pharmacy is open). But many fifteen and sixteen-year-old females do not possess legal ID with birthdates, making access difficult. Both the age and ID restrictions are not in compliance with the judge’s order or the best available science.

And then today, the Department of Justice announced it is appealing the judge’s ruling.

Here’s how I imagine it went down.

President Obama speaks at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday, April 29, 2013 where he pledged “fidelity to facts and truth.” Photo: White House.

The judge made his ruling. FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg did a little happy dance, thinking that science, at last, would rule the day. The White House, however, was hearing from interest groups unhappy with the judge’s ruling. So Commissioner Hamburg got another phone call from the White House: sorry, we’ll be appealing the decision. So she did the best she could and approved an out-of-date application from the drug’s manufacturer that provides somewhat better access to the drug.

Then, the next day, the Department of Justice announced its appeal. Pretty neat. There was no public skirmish this time between the FDA and the Secretary of Health and Human Services; the FDA went as far as it could (by doing its best to make a science-based decision) and the DOJ was left to do the dirty work.

And here’s the kicker:  the administration’s actions came less than 48 hours after the president told the National Academy of Sciences that it was essential for this country to embrace “fidelity to facts and truth, and a willingness to follow where the evidence leads.” He went on to say the following:

“One of the things that I’ve tried to do over these last four years and will continue to do over the next four years is to make sure that we are promoting the integrity of our scientific process…we’ve got to make sure that we are supporting the idea that they’re not subject to politics, that they’re not skewed by an agenda, that, as I said before, we make sure that we go where the evidence leads us.”

Well, sometimes, at least.

More than a year ago, I helped organize several scientists and women’s health experts to testify before the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. One by one, they went before the panel to explain their dismay at the Obama administration’s politicization of science, urging the president’s advisors to weigh in with White House leaders.

If PCAST said anything, it must have fallen on deaf ears.

The advisory group is meeting again this Friday. I had enough faith that the administration would do the right thing that I didn’t encourage anyone to testify this time around. I thought that this time we were going to kick the football right through the goalposts.

Wrong again.

Our report, released last month on Freedom of Information Day, asked the question of whether or not federal scientists had freedom to speak on traditional and social media outlets. To find out, we graded media and social media policies at 17 federal agencies that have significant numbers of scientists in their ranks. We offered agency-specific recommendations for any agency or department whose policy didn’t make the honor roll (nearly all of them).

But this isn’t the whole story. We know from past experience that policy and practice don’t always go hand-in-hand. At our Branscomb Science and Democracy Forum last fall reporters expressed difficulty accessing federal scientists, even at agencies where strong media policies were in place. This testimony echoed the findings of two independent assessments from the Society of Environmental Journalists and the Columbia Journalism Review. If this is the case with traditional media policies, it’s logical to think that social media policies may also be lacking in their implementation.

Strong written policies are an important first step to good practices at federal agencies. But strong agency practices are the other half of the equation. And when it comes to this category, it’s much harder to know if agencies are making the grade. Does agency leadership reinforce the provisions of the social media policies? Are federal scientists in a work environment where they feel comfortable embracing social media? Or alternatively, are they facing repercussions for exploring these new tools?

To get a glimpse of the answers to these questions, we surveyed the federal scientists on the UCS Science Network and heard back from 72 scientists across 17 federal agencies. Here are some samples of what they said about their ability to use social media:

“It seems impossible to simultaneously describe my place of employment on a social media site and abide by my employer’s requirements for speaking only as an individual.” — anonymous DOE scientist, 2012

“ ‘Loose lips sink ships’ appears to be management’s motivation.” — anonymous USDA scientist on the agency’s social media policy, 2012

“We have been encouraged to use social media—judiciously—to get our science message out. … [W]e have found social media to be extremely useful to communicate to our diverse audience.”  — anonymous USGS scientist, 2012

“It is hard to tweet in a space suit.” Some federal agencies, like NASA, are very active on social media. Photo: Laura A. Burns (@moonrangerlaura)

The survey results suggest a mixed bag. As my colleague Michael Halpern pointed out in a post last month, implementation of social media policies seems to be good at some agencies but lacking at others. Ultimately, we can use what we are hearing from scientists to find the solutions. What are the challenges to using social media that federal scientists face? And what can agency leadership, NGOs like us, and fellow scientists do to help? How can we create spaces for federal scientists to embrace the power that social media has for multi-way communication of government science?

I know ScienceOnline has ideas and I look forward to the conversation. Hope to see you there—in person or through social media (of course!).

Here are the event details:

ScienceOnlineDC Presents

Science, Government, and Social Media: A conversation about government transparency on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and other social media outlets

When: Wednesday, May 1, 2013, 5:00-7:00 PM EDT

Where: American Chemical Society, Marvel Hall AB, 1155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20036

Participants include:

• Gretchen Goldman, Union of Concerned Scientists
• Megan McVey, United States Global Change Research Program
• Sarah Dewitt, communications officer, NASA Office of the Chief Scientist
• John Ohab, public affairs specialist, Naval Research Laboratory
• Jamie Vernon, AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow (moderator)

Discussion and livestream via the ScienceOnline website will run from about 5:00-6:00. Continue the conversation during a reception hosted by Chemical & Engineering News.

While the White House and the NAS aren’t saying anything publicly, the NAS canceled a large Monday morning celebratory event at the last minute due to “a major scheduling change.”

President Obama last addressed the NAS in April 2009. In that speech, he discussed the administration’s desire to address political interference in science:

“To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine democracy. It is contrary to our way of life. That’s why I’ve charged John Holdren and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy with leading a new effort to ensure that federal policies are based on the best and most unbiased scientific information.  I want to be sure that facts are driving scientific decisions — and not the other way around.”

The speech reinforced his March 2009 scientific integrity memorandum, which led to a December 2010 directive from Dr. Holdren, which led to scientific integrity policies from federal agencies and departments that UCS recently analyzed.

President Obama speaks at the NAS in 2009. Photo: White House

The NAS was founded under President Lincoln. Many presidents have addressed the NAS. One of my favorite quotes came from President George H. W. Bush in 1990:

“Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.”

UCS is pushing the Obama administration to continue its progress on scientific integrity by strengthening and fully implementing the policies that have been developed. It will be interesting to see what issues President Obama addresses—and does not address—in his remarks on Monday.

A couple of weeks ago, we asked Science Network members to contact members of Congress on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology regarding a misguided piece of legislation that would compromise the scientific integrity of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board (SAB). UCS’s Dr. Francesca Grifo wrote more about the legislation when she testified before the committee in March.

The proposed changes would delay the SAB’s work by years. First, the legislation calls for changes that will greatly weaken conflict of interest standards that are crucial to maintaining objectivity on the board. Second, the bill’s changes would tie the agency up in a number of unnecessary procedural hurdles that would enable special interests, such as companies affected by EPA’s actions, to delay the Board’s recommendations by months, if not years.

In short, the bill would greatly hinder the board’s ability to provide critical scientific advice, thus making it more difficult for the EPA to carry its mission. It’s a great way to help paralyze an agency that one really never cared for too much. Chemical and Engineering News has a good article on this most recent attack on the EPA.

Obviously, Congress is very busy doing (or sadly, more often these days, not doing) many things. It can be difficult to get members of Congress to pay attention to such a wonky topic.

Yet the contacts made by scientists helped focus the attention of several lawmakers. In a hearing to discuss the bill, these legislators not only spoke up against it, but also offered amendments to improve it. Our legislative assistant Yogin Kothari put together a video of some of the highlights from Reps Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Donna Edwards (D-MD), and Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR):

It’s impressive to see how much these members of Congress have learned about the topic, and how dedicated they have become to protecting the integrity and independence of the EPA Science Advisory Board. The hearing, in turn, brought out many of the problems with the proposed legislation, giving more information to the public and the press.

While the bill ultimately passed out of committee on a party line vote, the bill is slightly improved (although we still strongly oppose it). We believe, however, that the attention that UCS supporters helped us bring to the issue helped educate members of Congress and the media about the bill’s substantial flaws.

Thanks to those who took the time out of your day to weigh in.

Now I know what you’re thinking. Is she serious? Does she know there’s a world outside of Washington, DC? I’d rather do my own taxes every month as someone scratches on a blackboard than look at corporate tax forms. But hear me out! This stuff matters.

What Corporate Tax Forms Tell Us

Corporate tax forms are one of the (unfortunately few) ways that the public can learn about how companies are influencing policy making. Many public companies in the U.S. have corporate foundations that they use to donate to outside organizations—everything from local Girl Scout troops to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  These corporate foundations are required to publicly disclose their contributions.

We used corporate foundation tax forms as a source of information in last year’s report, A Climate of Corporate Control. That report revealed that that corporations influence the conversation on climate change through their support of outside organizations that work on climate change issues. These outside groups included think tanks, trade groups, and business associations, and some of them take anti-science positions on climate change and work aggressively to challenge climate science and science-based policies.

What Corporate Tax Forms Don’t Tell Us

While researching for our report, we were frustrated at how challenging it was to find out which companies supported these anti-science groups. The problem is that corporations often don’t use their foundations to donate, but rather support groups directly. And direct corporate support of outside groups is not publicly disclosed. So we can’t learn which groups corporations are supporting by reading their tax forms. As a result, the public can be left in the dark about who is funding these outside groups to spread misinformation about climate change, block policies to address climate change, or influence other important policy discussions without accountability.

Better disclosure requirements coming from the White House, Congress, or the Securities and Exchange Commission would help address this, but unfortunately none of these proposals have been successful yet. Still, company shareholders and even corporations themselves have taken a stand on greater transparency in donations to outside groups and voluntary disclosure can be an important first step.

We analyzed the climate change positions of 14 US trade and business associations and found that a third of them continue to misrepresent climate science in their materials and public statements.

Partnering with CDP to Improve Corporate Disclosure on Climate Change

With this in mind, the Union of Concerned Scientists has partnered with CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) to encourage companies to voluntarily disclose their political activities related to climate change. CDP is an international not-for-profit that works with market forces to motivate companies to disclose their impacts on the environment and take action to reduce them. The organization administers a climate change questionnaire annually to 3,000+ companies, including more than 1,500 in the US. This year, for the first time, the questionnaire will ask companies about their membership in trade and business associations and their donations to think tanks and other research organizations. Moreover, CDP is asking companies whether or not they agree with the climate change positions of their trade and business groups.

And how will companies know what those climate change positions are? CDP links to the recent UCS report, Assessing Trade and Business Groups’ Positions on Climate Change. Our results show that many large trade and business associations have consistently opposed climate policies, and even more concerning, several have yet to accept basic climate science. When they fill out CDP’s survey this spring, many companies will have the opportunity to take a stand on these anti-science positions of their trade associations.

The Center for Science and Democracy at UCS is working with CDP to hold companies accountable to the climate change positions of their trade and business associations.

Holding Companies Accountable

Initiatives like CDP’s survey can help us hold companies accountable to the positions of their trade associations. And the survey is one way that we can promote greater transparency about how corporations use outside groups for their political activities, while we continue to push for better disclosure laws.

When the influences behind public policy making are concealed, the democratic processes of our government are vulnerable to corporate and political interference. For the sake of our democracy, corporations should be held accountable for their political activities.

But you should be sure to do your own taxes too.

A federal judge has accomplished what two administrations failed to do: make a decision about access to a drug based on medical evidence. It’s just common sense for the government to make drug approval and access decisions solely based on the best available science, not on hunches or political calculations. The decision brings a decade of politics trumping science to an end. 

After ten years of political interference, the FDA will soon be able to follow the science and make Plan B emergency contraception available over-the-counter at drugstores. Photo: Flickr user Dead Air

The saga began during the Bush administration, when officials within the FDA defied scientific staff and an independent advisory committee in refusing to make the drug available without a prescription. The problem continued after President Obama took office, when Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius went back on a promise to ensure that FDA decisions were scientifically supportable when she ordered the agency to refrain from approving Plan B for over-the-counter access, despite a clear statement from FDA that such access was warranted.

Medical experts and leading medical organizations have overwhelmingly said that emergency contraception is safe for use over the counter–safer, in fact, than some of the products already on drugstore shelves.

Congratulations should go to the science and health advocates who have worked tirelessly for the past ten years to show how the government was politicizing the science of emergency contraception and to hold officials accountable for undermining the authority of the FDA. This includes Dr. Susan Wood, a scientist who resigned from the agency in 2005 in protest during the Bush administration and has done much since to raise the profile of this issue. This also includes the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, which has done much to educate the public about the science of emergency contraception, and many other public health organizations and advocates who have recognized that when it comes to any drug approval or access decision, we should put the science first.

Last fall, however,  Reps. Ralph Hall (R-TX), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Andy Harris (R-MD), and Dan Benishek (R-MI) introduced legislation  that would compromise the scientific integrity of  the Scientific Advisory Board.

Today I am testifying  in a congressional hearing to examine a new version of that legislation. This draft bill contains provisions that would slow the work of the Scientific Advisory Board, remove longstanding and widely accepted practices for dealing with conflicts of interest and reduce the expertise of Scientific Advisory Board members. It will probably not surprise you that I am not a big fan of this proposed legislation.

Slowing the committee down

The Scientific Advisory Board is already overburdened and does not need its scope broadened – especially in this time of budget cuts and trying to do more with less funding. Asking the SAB to respond in writing to every submitted comment might seem like a good idea except that they already read and consider them and any special interest could bring the committee’s work to a virtual standstill by submitting thousands or even tens of thousands of comments every week. Adding red tape is a tool long used by special interests to delay regulations that protect your health and safety.

Conflict of interest

I will tell Congress that taking money from a private interest does affect decision-making. That’s why we have ethics in government laws and that’s why scientific journals ask scientists to disclose their funding sources.

Removing key experts

I will tell Congress that the National Academies of Science, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation all successfully prevent scientists from reviewing their own work without removing them from their committees.

I recently worked with UCS President Kevin Knobloch when he participated in a study by the Bipartisan Policy Center on this topic and was a member of the Research Integrity Roundtable of the Keystone Center when they reported on dealing with conflict of interest and bias in scientific advisory panels and I will tell Congress how we can do better so you can grab a glass of water, take a gulp of air or walk down the street and trust that the best and most independent scientists are helping the EPA protect you!

If you want to follow along you can watch here.