Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:42:31 -0500
From: Don Norman <norman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Political interference with scientific committees
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Organization: Nielsen Norman group
Dave
Four colleagues of mine, all members of the National Research Council's
Committee on Human factors, have written an article to be published in the
Bulletin of the Human factors and Ergonomics Society, critical of the way
that the current government is interfering with the selection of scientific
experts on study panels. I think it deserves the wide circulation and
discussion your list generates. Alas, the article is really long, much
longer than the normal material you circulate. And it is not available on a
website. (I do have their permission to forward it to you.)
I have pasted article from the Word file below. Do with it as you will.
Don
Donald A. Norman
Nielsen Norman Group http://www.nngroup.com
norman@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.jnd.org
Prof. Computer Science and Psychology
Northwestern University, norman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------
Defending the Independence of the
Science of Human Factors and Ergonomics
By Raja Parasuraman, Peter Hancock, Robert Radwin, and William Marras
This article continues the occasional series of reports on the activities of
the National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Human Factors (CoHF). The
CoHF is a standing committee of the National Academy of Sciences established
to advise the federal government on various policy matters involving Human
Factors and Ergonomics (HF/E). In this report we discuss recent developments
concerning the imposition by the current administration of a political
agenda upon the deliberations of science in general, and HF/E in particular.
These disturbing developments raise a number of serious concerns that
threaten the independence of the science of HF/E.
The goal of politics is the pursuit of justice through the exercise of
shared power. The goal of science is the search for empirical truth. In
principle, politics shares that goal. In theory science informs public
policy decisions that are legislated; in practice, politicians often focus
on the exercise of shared power. As a result, many feel that science and
politics should be kept separated as much as is feasible, as in the
separation of Church and State. Yet, in the past there have been political
decisions that were made contingent upon information derived from the
scientific state-of-the-art. At the same time, scientific study is not
possible without drawing on the popular purse-the taxpayer's dollar-which is
under the control of politicians. Much as some would like to maintain a
pristine separation between science and politics, therefore, there is
inevitable interaction, which must as a consequence, be monitored carefully.
As scientists we are often loath to do this, for it means leaving the ivory
tower of academia to sample the perceived muddy waters of politics.
Recent events indicate that we must do so. The events are disturbing because
they seriously threaten the independence of the science and practice of
HF/E. Our purpose here is not simply to apprise the membership of these
developments but to solicit their active response to this situation, which
we believe represents a dangerous trend that must be systematically opposed.
In science, the degree to which one's opinion is influential is (or at least
should be) contingent upon how one's ideas and notions conform to testable
reality. Politicians sometimes create the reality for themselves and the
power of opinion is contingent upon just that-power. Over the centuries, we
have collectively observed the disastrous outcome when power seeks to
impress its opinion on reality. From the inquisition of Galileo, through the
famines of Lysenkoism, to the more recent pithy observations of Richard
Feynman on the 'Challenger' disaster, we know that when political expediency
triumphs over scientific knowledge we have trodden the first steps along the
road to failure. It is not up to politicians to recognize this (after all,
they are politicians). It is up to scientists to continuously bring this
recipe for disaster before the public eye and this we seek to do here.
A Dangerous Trend
As described in the 15th November, 2002, issue of the journal Science
(Ferber, 2002), the current administration has engaged in political
screening of appointees to peer review study sections that are charged with
evaluating the scientific merits of research proposals on HF/E issues in the
workplace. One of the primary funding sources for research in HF/E is the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Scientific
proposals are reviewed by their different study sections which include those
that examine occupational injuries. The Department of Health and Human
Services which oversees these efforts has been accused of partisan actions.
Specifically, "the department has rejected three people who were proposed by
science administrators at the National Institute of Health (NIH) which
manages the study section - "at least one" for her support of an ergonomics
rule that was overturned last year by the Bush Administration." The article
goes on to indicate who these individuals were and further discusses the
process of 'screening' whereby potential study section members were quizzed
as to their political opinions prior to appointment-or not. Of course, these
activities go to the very heart of scientific independence. However, if this
were only one case it might be an individual outlier and represent an
exception. Unfortunately, this is not so (Rosenthal et al, 2002). There is
now mounting evidence of systematic attempts to infiltrate political opinion
into scientific deliberation.
As one might imagine, this has become an extremely controversial issue with
the standard fare of accusations and counter-accusations whirling around the
political scene (see Weiss, 2003). However, when prestigious scientific
journals such as Science, Nature, and the New England Journal of Medicine
express significant concern, we can see the HF/E issue as only one amongst
many threats to the impartiality of scientific information. The editors of
the Lancet are quoted as warning against the "growing evidence of explicit
vetting of appointees to influential [scientific] panels on the basis of
their political or religious opinions." In part response to this concern,
the CoHF, of which one of us (R.P.) is Chair, recently prepared a letter to
Bruce Alberts, the President of the National Academy of Sciences, in order
to express the present concerns. It reads, in part "Science must not be
contaminated by politics. Our concern is with the precedent that such
actions set. If these trends are allowed to continue, it is clear that
science in our country will not be influenced by appropriate evaluations
that are consistent with the scientific process and an essential search for
truth, but rather will evolve to become an appendage to the opinion of
whatever political faction temporarily holds sway" (Parasuraman, 2003).
When political pressure infiltrates the peer review process by excluding
otherwise qualified scientists because of their political views, by
"stacking the deck" with only those scientists who support the current
Administration's political agenda, the scientific process becomes
contaminated. Such single-sided bias in the selection of scientific juries
inhibits the greater good of the pursuit of knowledge and suppression of
scientific inquiry in certain areas by making political agendas part of the
scientific review.
The poet W. H. Auden wrote that, "The belief that politics can be scientific
must inevitably produce tyrannies. Politics cannot be a science, because in
politics theory and practice cannot be separated, and the sciences depend
upon their separation.... Empirical politics must be kept in bounds by
democratic institutions, which leave it up to the subjects of the experiment
to say whether it shall be tried, and to stop it if they dislike it,
because, in politics, there is a distinction, unknown to science, between
Truth and Justice."
In this short article we cannot examine all the ramifications of the issue,
but we wished first to bring the seriousness of the situation to the
membership. Simple protest may be insufficient. One important question that
emerges is "What can we as a professional Society do in the face of these
developments?" The corollary is to examine what individual concerned
scientists can do about such growing infringements.
A Path Ahead
Our aim in this article has been simply to point out the threat to the
independence of the science of HF/E. We wish to allay the fears of any
members by categorically stating that we are not engaged in a partisan
effort. Our concern here is not with one particular administration as
compared to another. Rather, our defense of science is without concern for
specific incumbents since we would expect to protect the independence of
science regardless of the stripe of those who held political power. Whenever
this threat arises, which it does quite frequently, it is our responsibility
for the greater good to protect the purity of process as much as is
possible. Not in response to the momentary vagaries of any one political
situation but for the fundamental betterment of all. In large part
politicians come from a background in law where precedent holds significant
sway and all is open to dispute. Science shares some of these
characteristics. However, in respect of certain fundamental properties of
reality, our knowledge is sufficiently sure that disputes, while always
still possible, are largely puerile. An argument in science is not judged by
its polemic qualities but by the degree to which it accords with empirical
evidence. If certain politicians believe they can judge the issues of
science from their own reference frame, they are sadly misinformed and our
whole Society will pay a bitter price for such misjudgments.
Our Society and all HF/E professionals in general would do well to monitor
how other organizations, including scientific societies are addressing this
matter. For example, the Public Policy Office of the American Psychological
Association has examined some of the issues concerning the appointment of
scientists to advisory boards and study panels. There is also an ongoing
investigation of the issues surrounding appointments to advisory councils
that is being conducted by the Government Accounting Office (GAO). The GAO
has defined 3 researchable questions that will guide their investigation:
(1) What is the role of advisory councils government-wide in helping shape
policies and regulations? (2) What policies and procedures are in place to
ensure that advisory councils provide balanced advice? (3) Are there any
improvements to be made in those policies and procedures? The GAO report,
due in January 2004, will provide recommendations pertaining to the
questions and may identify some of the actions that could be taken to avoid
future allegations of inappropriate vetting of scientific advisors seeking
appointment to advisory panels. Individuals who may have information
relevant to this issue may wish to contact the GAO as they conduct their
investigation. As these and other organizations look at the issues more
closely, procedures for assuring that future scientific appointments are
made in a fair and politically neutral way may emerge (Kennedy, 2003).
In Conclusion
The suppression of empirical truth in any form is anathema to science. When
science is invoked in any fashion to inform public decision making, the
critical premise is that no such suppression has occurred. Attempts to
pervert scientific input and promote partisan interests may succeed on a
very brief time scale. This could accrue through the control or banning of
dissenting opinion (see Michaels et al, 2002). However, the long-term costs
of such a strategy are catastrophic. History tells us that the Empires of
the past have fallen in ever shorter time frames. The current world
leadership of the United States is predicated upon its technical superiority
founded upon its pre-eminence in scientific achievement. Political
interference to the process of scientific arbitration, whilst possibly
viewed by certain politicians as a pragmatic necessity, is a sure recipe for
disaster. There is no quicker way for America to lose its status in the
world than to poison the wells of Science. The actions that have been taken
by the present incumbents and noted here are sadly evident of this
miscalculation. Hopefully, our collective voice can dissuade those presently
in power from this tragic course.
References
Auden, W. H. (1970). "Tyranny," A Certain World, New York, Viking Press.
Ferber, D. (2002). HHS intervenes in choice of study section members.
Science, 298, 1323.
Kennedy, D. (2003). "Well they were doing it too." Editorial, Science, 302,
17.
Michaels, D., Bingham, E., Boden, L., Clapp, R., Goldman, L.R., Hoppin, P.,
Krimsky, S., Monforton, C., Ozonoff., & Robbins, A. (2002). Advice without
dissent. Science, 298, 703.
Parasuraman, R. (2003). Issues of scientific integrity and political
interference. Letter prepared to Bruce Alberts, President of the National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
Rosenthal, M.B., Berndt, E.R., Donohue, J.M., Frank, R.G., & Epstein, A.M.
(2002). Promotion of prescription drugs to consumers. New England Journal of
Medicine, 346 (7), 498-505.
Weiss, R. (2003). Bush misuses science, report says. Washington Post, August
8th, 2003, A15.
Raja Parasuraman, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at the Catholic
University of America, Washington DC.
Peter Hancock, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at the University of Central
Florida, Orlando, FL.
Robert Radwin, Ph.D. is Professor of Biomedical Engineering at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
William Marras, Ph.D. is Professor of Industrial Engineering at Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH.
All four authors of this article are members of the NRC Committee on Human
Factors. Thanks to Anne Mavor, Staff Director of the CoHF, and Geoff
Mumford, Director for Science Policy of the Public Policy Office of the
American Psychological Association, for their helpful comments.