Suspicious science.

Byline: The Register-Guard

In February, 62 renowned scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, signed a statement charging the Bush administration with widespread and unprecedented "manipulation of the process through which science enters into its decisions."

White House science adviser Dr. John Marburger responded that such criticism was "preposterous." Marburger, a lifelong Democrat, said his appointment was demonstrative proof that the administration didn't employ a political litmus test before approving membership on government scientific advisory panels.

Marburger's denials have not found traction in the scientific community. The Union of Concerned Scientists said this month that since its February statement of concern, more than 4,000 scientists have added their signatures, including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences.

Despite the administration's efforts to dismiss the Union of Concerned Scientists as a left-leaning advocacy group, many of the signatories to its statement have served in multiple administrations, both Democratic and Republican. The roster of administration critics has ballooned to include hundreds of pre-eminent researchers with international acclaim.

The administration ignores this escalating criticism at its peril. At any given time, the government seeks scientific and technical advice from about 200 advisory panels. The credibility of administration policy on everything from climate control to contraception depends on its being able to recruit the nation's best scientists to serve on advisory committees.

The distrust of Bush administration motives now runs so deep in the scientific community that the National Academy of Sciences has begun studying whether it's proper to consider politics and points of view in the appointment of scientists to federal advisory committees.

Perhaps scientists are obligated to frame such an inquiry with neutral language like "whether it's proper." Common sense suggests not only that it is grossly improper, but also that it could be very dangerous to allow any administration, Republican or Democrat, to manipulate the personnel or data associated with government research to make it support preconceived policy objectives.

A moment's clear thought is all it takes to recognize the danger. Scientists take great pains to avoid introducing anything into their research that could prejudice its outcome. It is precisely the ability of other independent scientists to replicate that outcome that sustains or refutes the original researcher's insights - and integrity.

Much more than partisan policy formulation is at stake here. The charges leveled against the Bush administration by scientists who have served on current advisory committees contain serious implications for the health, safety and environment of all Americans.

A couple of recent examples: Michael Kelly, a biologist who had served at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service for nine years, recently resigned his position, saying, "I speak for many of my fellow biologists who are embarrassed and disgusted by the agency's apparent misuse of science."

Robert Paine, an ecologist at the University of Washington who chaired an advisory panel on endangered salmon and trout, said his team was warned by the government to remove facts that undermined policy.

"We were told to strip out specific scientific recommendations or see our report end up in a drawer," Paine said.

The Bush administration's response thus far has been to call the critics "whining scientists." It's fair for the American public to ask President Bush this question as he campaigns for their support in November:

"If the outrage of more than 4,000 scientists isn't enough to prompt a more substantive response than name-calling, how many whining scientists does it take to screw in the light bulb that will get your attention?"