Abstract
“Seeking scientific truth is too important to be impeded by political expediency.” Thus wrote Republican Cong. Sherwood Boehlert of New York, chairman of the House Science Committee, in a sternly worded July 14 letter to his colleague, Republican Cong. Joe Barton of Texas. Boehlert expressed alarm that Barton, a skeptic of climate change, had begun investigating scientists who had coauthored a widely cited 1999 study presenting evidence of dramatic temperature increases in the twentieth century. Barton sent the researchers a two-page list of requested materials–not only their data, but also personal financial information.
“My primary concern about your investigation is that its purpose seems to be to intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them,” Boehlert wrote, warning Barton of the consequences of Congress putting “its thumbs on the scales of a scientific debate.” Such efforts are “at best foolhardy,” he added, since “when it comes to scientific debates, Congress is ‘all thumbs.’”
Yet, as science journalist Chris Mooney observes in this issue of the Bulletin, Congress has been tipping the scales of scientific debate for some time now, thanks in part to an ill-fated decision a decade ago to dismantle the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). For more than 20 years, the world-renowned agency produced some 750 reports and assessments advising Congress on everything from biotechnology to climate change. Yet, OTA's facts didn't always conform to what some members of Congress personally believed–most notably in regards to space-based missile defense. Ultimately, the advisory panel found itself in the crosshairs of legislators intent on shrinking government (see p. 40).
Today, OTA's expertise is sorely missed in congressional debates on subjects such as bunker-busting nukes and stem cell research. Most troubling of all is that absent a neutral arbiter of scientific facts, some members of Congress now surround themselves with their own hand-picked “experts” and allow the scientific consensus on vital issues to be defined by self-interested lobbyists and think tanks.
OTA would have likely raised a questioning eyebrow at the findings of the congressionally mandated panel, the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack. There is no doubt that a nuclear weapon of sufficient yield detonated at the proper altitude could generate an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that causes significant damage to electronic equipment. However, as the Project on Government Oversight's Nick Schwellenbach reports (p. 50), what is in doubt is how extensive that damage would be and whether terrorists would be able to execute such a technologically daunting attack. The EMP Commission thinks they could and has recommended spending billions to safeguard the nation. But some disagree and are advocating an independent scientific peer review of the commission's findings.
For those in government, facts can indeed be inconvenient things–which is precisely why we need more of them.