U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientists are faced with widespread political interference that has significantly increased under the Bush administration, a new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) shows. Hundreds of the scientists surveyed (60 percent) reported some degree of political meddling, ranging from unnecessary delays to forced resignations.

The EPA's budget has declined in real terms by almost 25 percent since Bush took office, lower than it was in the 1990s. The UCS investigation reveals an agency additionally weakened by a political agenda with little basis in, or respect for, science. From the blatant manipulation of climate change reports to the intimidation of scientists whose professional opinions clash with a political agenda and the closing of agency libraries, the current administration has undermined the scientific autonomy of the EPA more than any other recent administration. A majority of the survey respondents with at least 10 years tenure reported that political interference has increased over the last five years alone. Russell Train, EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, was quoted in the UCS report saying that neither of those presidents ever attempted to bully him into a decision.

Disgruntled EPA Scientists
UCS surveyed over 5,000 EPA scientists during the summer of 2007, receiving completed responses from 1,586 individuals. Most of those responses were from veteran employees who had worked at EPA for more than 10 years. Surveys came from every region and from many of the agency's research laboratories.

Survey results indicated that while EPA staff is involved in quality scientific research, political interference affected how the research is handled; often, it is ignored, misinterpreted, or misstated. Almost half of respondents (47 percent) felt that EPA does not "make use of the best judgment of its scientific staff" to some degree, and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards was particularly egregious in this regard. Similarly, program offices with regulatory duties and EPA headquarters had the highest incidence of political manipulation.

The report also showed:

• 24 percent of respondents experienced frequent or occasional "disappearance or unusual delay" of websites, reports, or other documents
• 31 percent personally experienced frequent or occasional "statements by EPA officials that misrepresent scientists' findings"
• 43 percent knew of "many or some" cases where EPA political appointees had inappropriately involved themselves in scientific decisions, and 42 percent knew of situations where commercial interests did the same
• 62 percent do not have enough resources to adequately do their jobs
• 36 percent consider that the changes and closures within the EPA library system have impaired their ability to do their jobs; in regions where libraries had closed, this figure leapt to 48 percent

The Role of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
The survey found that OMB has played an increasingly significant role in controlling EPA's rules and policies. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has taken an unusually active approach to regulatory reviews. It has tried to set scientific assessment guidelines and risk analysis parameters and has taken to reviewing the science upon which EPA bases decisions with its own "experts."

In just one example of OMB overstepping its role, the office refused to allow EPA to increase air quality standards for fine particulate matter based on OMB's scientific evaluation, in spite of the consensus of EPA specialists and advisory committees to do so.

Survey respondents were particularly vocal about OMB interference with their work:

• "Get the OMB and their inexperienced staff out of the review and decision-making process."
• "Restrain [the] Office of Management and Budget. This administration has not only watered down important rules protecting public health … they have also altered internal procedures so that scientific findings are accorded less weight."
• "In this administration, self-censorship is almost as powerful as political censorship. Options that OMB or the White House wouldn't like aren't even put forward."

The concerns of EPA scientists about the role of OMB and the White House were recently bolstered by a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report about White House interference with EPA's work on screening chemicals for cancer or other health risks. According to the Associated Press, this involves assessments of chemicals used in "everything from household products to rocket fuel." Because of bureaucratic delays put in place by the White House, reviews of nearly a dozen major chemicals are now years overdue.

Recommendations from the Report
EPA scientists were evenly split on whether or not EPA was moving in the right direction. UCS has no such hesitation in declaring EPA's mission to protect the environment and public health as compromised.

UCS recommends:

• Congress should step up to the plate to protect scientists and increase EPA's budget so there are adequate resources for programs, particularly monitoring and enforcement
• EPA should institute a transparency policy for all meetings, allow scientists to communicate freely with the media, and ensure the timely release of reports
• Congress should reform the regulatory process to better balance the White House's role in it
• EPA should ensure that its decision making is grounded in science by reviewing when scientific input is required and tightening its conflict-of-interest restrictions.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating possible incidents of manipulation of EPA decision making. There will be a hearing in May.

The scientific community will likely be discussing these and other issues affecting the integrity of the science used by agencies at the Integrity in Science Conference on July 11. The conference, sponsored by Center for Science in the Public Interest, will address issues such as the need for increased science funding, more independent regulatory science, and the need to protect public sector scientists from political meddling and corporate influence. Planned sessions include tackling the climate crisis, protecting and empowering scientists at federal agencies, insulating clean energy research from special interests, protecting endangered species, and reducing conflicts of interest on federal advisory committees.