Document N6VD2ddKEpdE5XoJJ0Nro5Ob

nature 30 January 2003 Volume 421 Issue no 6922 All the President's yes-men? George W. Bush's administration stands accused of biasing the process by which the US government obtains scientific advice. There is a strong case to answer, but the situation is not as unusual as it might at first seem. he relationship between science and politics is never perfect, Tbut critics charge that the current US administration has so politicized the provision of scientific advice that it could permanently undermine public trust. Just last week, a storm of protest greeted the announcement that Jerry Thacker, an HIV-positive Christian activist who has referred to AIDS as a "gay plague", would be appointed to the Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV and AIDS. Three months before, a committee advising the Department of Health and Human Services on protect ingvolunteers in clinical trials was asked to consider whether embryos ,should be included within its remit (see Nature 420 3-4; 2002) -- a move that critics saw as part ofa wider anti-abortion agenda. The controversy extends to committees that review grant applica tions. Potential appointees to the panel advising the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, for instance, were asked their views on office safety standards -- just one example, critics allege, of political considerations impinging on appointments that should depend on scientific merit. The fear is that scientists will refuse to serve on panels that are seen as rubber stamps for administration policies, undermining the quality of the advice given to government agencies and eroding public trust. Some ofthe recent developments are disturbing. Ifthe committee on human research subjects gets bogged down discussing abortion politics instead ofhow to protect patients in clinical trials, lives could be put at risk. Members of committees reviewing grant applications should be selected for their scientific expertise, not their political views. But successive US administrations, both Republican and Demo crat, have packed advisory committees with scientists and other experts who share their political outlook. This only becomes a major issue for the scientific community when the views in questionjar with its majority opinion, or the politicization is blatant. Those with long memories say that the present outcry is reminis cent of the furore inspired by Ronald Reagan's administration in the early 1980s, when it tried similar tactics with committees advising the Environmental Protection Agency -- then seen as a thorn in the side of the administration's pro-business policies. This sorry episode alienated environmental scientists, but thankfully the administration eventually backed offand most ofthe damage was repaired. There is some comfort to be gained from the checks and balances inherent to the system. The degree oftransparency in the formulation ofscience-led policy in the United States has few parallels in the rest of the world. It is rare indeed for the public to be able to influence govern ment decisions about who sits on the panels and what they discuss. And so far, public input seems to be having a positive effect -- last week's storm led Thacker to withdraw from the HIV panel. This does not mean that the critics should relax. They should look back at the actions ofprevious administrations to determine the extent to which the current moves represent a departure from accepted practice. The National Academies' Committee on Science, Engineer ing, and Public Policy is set to take up these questions at its next meeting on 19 February, providing a welcome and timely forum. Scientists should fight undue attempts by the Bush administra tion to politicize the advisory process, and extend the same scrutiny to future administrations, whatever their political persuasion. Too quiet on the Eastern front Change is needed before the nations poised to join the European Union can reap the full scientific benefits of membership. n May next year, the European Union (EU) will gain 75 million several research groups are finding niches where Poland can success Icitizens at a single stroke, with the accession of ten new member fully contribute to state-of-the-art research. countries, most of them in Central and Eastern Europe. Among Much now depends on another ray of hope: science minister those brought into Brussels' embrace will be some 250,000 researchers Michai Kleiber. A respected physicist and engineer who joined the -- a 15% rise in the EU's scientific workforce. But they won't come government last year, Kleiber has already convinced his colleagues to with bulgingwallets: the eastwards expansionwill increase the union's elevate the State Committee for Scientific Research to a fully fledged total spending on research by only 3.5%. ministry. That should give him more clout to push through reforms, Poland, home to more than half of the new EU citizens, provides but the task remains devilishly hard. a prominent example of the scientific weaknesses of the unions' The old guard is bound to fight efforts to concentrate funding budding members (see page 471). Although the Polish government is into groups that can compete on the European stage, and to close labs stressing that the country's future should not be one ofcheap labour, thatjust aren't good enough. But Kleiber's political peers should back it has done little to nurture a knowledge-based economy. Research him through any short-term unpopularity. Poland will change under spending stagnates at a shameful 0.34% ofpublic expenditure. EU membership, and some of those changes will hurt. If its research But money is only part of the problem. Poland, like many of base can be successfully reformed, there is much to be gained in terms its neighbours, has too many scientists who aren't internationally of collaboration with Western European scientists -- not to mention competitive, and who cling to the certainties of the socialist era. research grants from Brussels. Unfortunately, many ofthem sit in senior positions and intend to stay The same issues face many of other nations queuing up to join there, which sends genuine achievers to seek opportunities abroad. the EU. It would be satisfying to see the largest of the new countries Streamlining the overstaffed research system, and letting in the leading the way towards the promised land of European scientific fresh air of competition, is an urgent necessity. The talent exists, and integration, rather than dragging its feet. NATURE | VOL 421130 JANUARY 2003 | www.nature.com/nature 2003 Nature Publishing Group 459