The Unprecedented Presidency: Science and the Presidency
One of the frequent criticisms of the Trump administration has been in its marginalization in the role of science in policy making. The administration has halted numerous research projects, resulting in the departure of scientists who said their work was marginalized or suppressed. This is the first administration since 1941 not to name a Science Advisor to the President. While preparing for talks with Kim Jong-un, the White House was reported not to have consulted with a White House science adviser or senior counselor trained in nuclear physics. The positions of chief scientist in the State Department or the Department of Agriculture have not been filled. The administration nominated Sam Clovis to be chief scientist in the United States Department of Agriculture, but this appointment was criticized because Colvis had no scientific background. The White House later withdrew the nomination. The administration was successful however in its nominated of Jim Bridenstine, who also had no background in science, as head of NASA. He has rejected the scientific consensus on climate change. In addition, the United States Department of the Interior, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Food and Drug Administration disbanded advisory committees.
Under the Trump administration, the Department of Energy prohibited the use of the term "climate change". The administration was reported to have sent a list to the CDC on words that the agency was prohibited from using in its official communications, including "transgender", "fetus", "evidence-based", "science-based", "vulnerable", "entitlement", and "diversity", but the Director of the CDC has denied these reports.
President Trump has said on more than one occasion that government regulations have stifled businesses and hindered many of the administration’s core goals, which include increasing fossil-fuel production. Many of the starkest confrontations with federal scientists have involved issues like environmental oversight and energy extraction. The White House released a statement in 2018 which said: “Businesses are finally being freed of Washington’s overreach, and the American economy is flourishing as a result.”
The President has proposed massive budget cuts at a number of federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. These cuts have been rejected by Congress, which has the final say over budget levels. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have rejected these cuts. For example Senator Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee, said in 2019, that the Science Foundation “allows us to take advantage of the United States’ secret weapon, our extraordinary capacity for basic research.”
In other areas, such as space exploration at NASA and medical research at the National Institutes of Health, the budget has increased more than 12 percent since Mr. Trump took office and where researchers continue to make advances in areas like molecular biology and genetics. But in other areas, the administration has managed to reduce funding for scientific programs. At the Environmental Protection Agency for example, staffing has fallen to its lowest levels in at over a decade. More than two-thirds of respondents to a survey of federal scientists across 16 agencies have said that hiring freezes and departures made it harder to conduct scientific work. And in June, the White House ordered agencies to cut by one-third the number of federal advisory boards that provide technical advice.
Critics of the administration's science policy warn that the consequences of this approach are significant. They argue that many of the achievements of the past century that helped make the United States a leader in many fields of scientific study and have led to gains in life expectancy, lowered air pollution and increased farm productivity are the result of the kinds of government research now under pressure.
A troubling issue has been administration attempts to silence warnings from some government scientists. For example, the National Park Service’s principal climate change scientist, Patrick Gonzalez, received a “cease and desist” letter from supervisors after testifying to Congress about the risks that global warming posed to national parks. Gonzalez said, “I saw it as attempted intimidation. It interferes with science and hinders our work."
Shortly after President Trump’s election, the Commerce Department disbanded a 15-person scientific committee that had explored how to make National Climate Assessments, the congressionally mandated studies of the risks of climate change, more useful to local officials. It closed its Office of the Chief Economist, which for decades had conducted research on topics like the economic effects of natural disasters. The Interior Department has withdrawn funding for its Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, 22 regional research centers that tackled issues like habitat loss and wildfire management. Only California and Alaska have used state money to keep their centers open. In 2017, Interior officials canceled a $1 million study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the health risks of “mountaintop removal” coal mining in places like West Virginia. Mountaintop removal occurs when a hillside is blasted with explosives and the remains are excavated. The process can kick up coal dust and send heavy metals into waterways, and a number of studies have suggested links to health problems like kidney disease and birth defects.
Betsy Smith, a climate scientist with over 20 years of experience at the E.P.A. resigned from the agency after her long-running study of the effects of climate change on major ports was cancelled in 2017. She said that "we feel like the E.P.A. is being run by the fossil fuel industry.” Criticism has arisen over the loss of experienced scientists and the accompanying loss of institutional memory. Robert J. Kavlock, a toxicologist who retired in October 2017 after working at the E.P.A. for 40 years, has expressed concern over the fact that the agency’s Office of Research and Development, which researches topics like air pollution and chemical testing, has lost 250 scientists and technical staff members since the new administration came to office.
Patrick Gonzalez, the National Park Service’s principal climate change scientist, testified before Congress in February of 2019 about the risks of global warming. He told Congress that he was speaking in his capacity as an associate adjunct professor at the University of California, Berkeley and also used his Berkeley affiliation to participate as a co-author on a coming report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that synthesizes climate science for world leaders. But in March, shortly after testifying, Dr. Gonzalez’s supervisor at the National Park Service sent him a cease-and-desist letter warning him that his Berkeley affiliation was not separate from his government work and that his actions were violating agency policy. Dr. Gonzalez said he viewed the letter as an attempt to deter him from speaking out. Dr. Gonzalez continues to speak out about the dangers of climate change and work with the United Nations climate change panel using his vacation time.
The dangers of an administration ignoring scientific evidence are perhaps best illustrated in the 1976 swine flu outbreak and the damage caused when distribution of a vaccine was rushed before it has been properly researched. In June of that year, J. Anthony Morris, a researcher in the Food and Drug Administration's Bureau of Biologics, was dismissed for insubordination after he went public with findings that cast doubt on the safety of the vaccine. Three days later, several manufacturers announced they had ceased production of the vaccine. On July 23, President Ford sent a letter urging Congress to take action on legislation protecting the manufacturers of the vaccine from liability. In August Congress passed the legislation.
The first shipment of vaccines to state health departments by September 22. The first swine flu inoculations were given at the Indiana State Fair. In October, three people died of heart attacks after receiving the vaccine at the same Pittsburgh clinic. The led to an immediate investigation and recall of that batch of vaccine. The President and his family received their immunizations before the television cameras. On November 2, Gerald Ford lost the presidential election to Jimmy Carter. That same month Albert Sabin published a New York Times editorial, entitled "Washington and the Flu", in which he agreed with the decision to create the vaccine and be prepared for an outbreak, but was critical of what he called "scare tactics" used by the Ford Administration to achieve the goal. He suggested stockpiling the vaccine and having a wait-and-see strategy.
Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome affecting vaccinated patients began to be reported in several states, including Minnesota, Maryland, and Alabama. Three more cases of Guillain-Barré were reported in early December and the investigation into cases of it spread to eleven states. On December 16, a one-month suspension of the vaccination program was announced by the CDC. The CDC estimated that the incidence of Guillain-Barré was four times higher in vaccinated people than in those not receiving the swine flu vaccine. President Ford told reporters that he agreed with the suspension, but defended the decision to create the immunization program.
In considering the lessons learned from the 1976 swine flue pandemic, Dr. Harvey Fineberg, former Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, said:
"What we saw back in ’76 was that political leaders wanted to do the right thing but lacked technical expertise, and public health experts recognized the uncertainty of the threat yet wanted to convey the seriousness of the risk in a way that would overcome political inertia. The challenge of communication between technical experts and policy-makers is as relevant today as it was in the ’70s... The responsibility of the technical expert here is to think hard and precisely about what is known and unknown, to portray the uncertainty in a way that is accurate and adjustable over time as circumstances change, and to communicate this to the policy-maker. Both policy-makers and technical experts face an intensified dilemma of communication when it comes to reaching the public, whose understanding, support and participation may become crucial."
Under the Trump administration, the Department of Energy prohibited the use of the term "climate change". The administration was reported to have sent a list to the CDC on words that the agency was prohibited from using in its official communications, including "transgender", "fetus", "evidence-based", "science-based", "vulnerable", "entitlement", and "diversity", but the Director of the CDC has denied these reports.
President Trump has said on more than one occasion that government regulations have stifled businesses and hindered many of the administration’s core goals, which include increasing fossil-fuel production. Many of the starkest confrontations with federal scientists have involved issues like environmental oversight and energy extraction. The White House released a statement in 2018 which said: “Businesses are finally being freed of Washington’s overreach, and the American economy is flourishing as a result.”
The President has proposed massive budget cuts at a number of federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. These cuts have been rejected by Congress, which has the final say over budget levels. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have rejected these cuts. For example Senator Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee, said in 2019, that the Science Foundation “allows us to take advantage of the United States’ secret weapon, our extraordinary capacity for basic research.”
In other areas, such as space exploration at NASA and medical research at the National Institutes of Health, the budget has increased more than 12 percent since Mr. Trump took office and where researchers continue to make advances in areas like molecular biology and genetics. But in other areas, the administration has managed to reduce funding for scientific programs. At the Environmental Protection Agency for example, staffing has fallen to its lowest levels in at over a decade. More than two-thirds of respondents to a survey of federal scientists across 16 agencies have said that hiring freezes and departures made it harder to conduct scientific work. And in June, the White House ordered agencies to cut by one-third the number of federal advisory boards that provide technical advice.
Critics of the administration's science policy warn that the consequences of this approach are significant. They argue that many of the achievements of the past century that helped make the United States a leader in many fields of scientific study and have led to gains in life expectancy, lowered air pollution and increased farm productivity are the result of the kinds of government research now under pressure.
A troubling issue has been administration attempts to silence warnings from some government scientists. For example, the National Park Service’s principal climate change scientist, Patrick Gonzalez, received a “cease and desist” letter from supervisors after testifying to Congress about the risks that global warming posed to national parks. Gonzalez said, “I saw it as attempted intimidation. It interferes with science and hinders our work."
Shortly after President Trump’s election, the Commerce Department disbanded a 15-person scientific committee that had explored how to make National Climate Assessments, the congressionally mandated studies of the risks of climate change, more useful to local officials. It closed its Office of the Chief Economist, which for decades had conducted research on topics like the economic effects of natural disasters. The Interior Department has withdrawn funding for its Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, 22 regional research centers that tackled issues like habitat loss and wildfire management. Only California and Alaska have used state money to keep their centers open. In 2017, Interior officials canceled a $1 million study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the health risks of “mountaintop removal” coal mining in places like West Virginia. Mountaintop removal occurs when a hillside is blasted with explosives and the remains are excavated. The process can kick up coal dust and send heavy metals into waterways, and a number of studies have suggested links to health problems like kidney disease and birth defects.
Betsy Smith, a climate scientist with over 20 years of experience at the E.P.A. resigned from the agency after her long-running study of the effects of climate change on major ports was cancelled in 2017. She said that "we feel like the E.P.A. is being run by the fossil fuel industry.” Criticism has arisen over the loss of experienced scientists and the accompanying loss of institutional memory. Robert J. Kavlock, a toxicologist who retired in October 2017 after working at the E.P.A. for 40 years, has expressed concern over the fact that the agency’s Office of Research and Development, which researches topics like air pollution and chemical testing, has lost 250 scientists and technical staff members since the new administration came to office.
Patrick Gonzalez, the National Park Service’s principal climate change scientist, testified before Congress in February of 2019 about the risks of global warming. He told Congress that he was speaking in his capacity as an associate adjunct professor at the University of California, Berkeley and also used his Berkeley affiliation to participate as a co-author on a coming report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that synthesizes climate science for world leaders. But in March, shortly after testifying, Dr. Gonzalez’s supervisor at the National Park Service sent him a cease-and-desist letter warning him that his Berkeley affiliation was not separate from his government work and that his actions were violating agency policy. Dr. Gonzalez said he viewed the letter as an attempt to deter him from speaking out. Dr. Gonzalez continues to speak out about the dangers of climate change and work with the United Nations climate change panel using his vacation time.
The dangers of an administration ignoring scientific evidence are perhaps best illustrated in the 1976 swine flu outbreak and the damage caused when distribution of a vaccine was rushed before it has been properly researched. In June of that year, J. Anthony Morris, a researcher in the Food and Drug Administration's Bureau of Biologics, was dismissed for insubordination after he went public with findings that cast doubt on the safety of the vaccine. Three days later, several manufacturers announced they had ceased production of the vaccine. On July 23, President Ford sent a letter urging Congress to take action on legislation protecting the manufacturers of the vaccine from liability. In August Congress passed the legislation.
The first shipment of vaccines to state health departments by September 22. The first swine flu inoculations were given at the Indiana State Fair. In October, three people died of heart attacks after receiving the vaccine at the same Pittsburgh clinic. The led to an immediate investigation and recall of that batch of vaccine. The President and his family received their immunizations before the television cameras. On November 2, Gerald Ford lost the presidential election to Jimmy Carter. That same month Albert Sabin published a New York Times editorial, entitled "Washington and the Flu", in which he agreed with the decision to create the vaccine and be prepared for an outbreak, but was critical of what he called "scare tactics" used by the Ford Administration to achieve the goal. He suggested stockpiling the vaccine and having a wait-and-see strategy.
Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome affecting vaccinated patients began to be reported in several states, including Minnesota, Maryland, and Alabama. Three more cases of Guillain-Barré were reported in early December and the investigation into cases of it spread to eleven states. On December 16, a one-month suspension of the vaccination program was announced by the CDC. The CDC estimated that the incidence of Guillain-Barré was four times higher in vaccinated people than in those not receiving the swine flu vaccine. President Ford told reporters that he agreed with the suspension, but defended the decision to create the immunization program.
In considering the lessons learned from the 1976 swine flue pandemic, Dr. Harvey Fineberg, former Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, said:
"What we saw back in ’76 was that political leaders wanted to do the right thing but lacked technical expertise, and public health experts recognized the uncertainty of the threat yet wanted to convey the seriousness of the risk in a way that would overcome political inertia. The challenge of communication between technical experts and policy-makers is as relevant today as it was in the ’70s... The responsibility of the technical expert here is to think hard and precisely about what is known and unknown, to portray the uncertainty in a way that is accurate and adjustable over time as circumstances change, and to communicate this to the policy-maker. Both policy-makers and technical experts face an intensified dilemma of communication when it comes to reaching the public, whose understanding, support and participation may become crucial."