Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - June 24, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to prohibit the Department of Health and Human Services from using political litmus tests in making appointments to scientific advisory committees.
Advisory committees play a crucial role in the development of policy. That role is to offer policymakers the best available expertise on scientific matters. Science is not liberal or conservative. It is not Democratic or Republican. In order to develop the best policy, our government needs to hear the facts from the most qualified experts, regardless of their political affiliation.
This common sense principle is widely accepted in the scientific community. It has been endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, and numerous other scientific organizations.
This amendment simply adopts this principle into policy. It would prohibit funding for any committee where members are chosen on the basis of political affiliation, unless required by law.
Unfortunately, the current Administration has a terrible track record on this issue. It has repeatedly applied political litmus tests in making appointments to advisory committees.
A nationally recognized expert on substance abuse was asked if he had voted for President Bush. After he answered honestly, he was not appointed.
An expert in marine ecology was asked if she supported the President's economic and foreign policy agenda. After she told the truth, she was immediately dropped from consideration.
A Nobel Prize winner was nominated for an important NIH panel on international health. According to a senior NIH official, he was not picked because he had ``signed too many full page letters in the Times.''
The Administration's use of political litmus tests has generated outrage in the scientific community.
The editor of the journal Science has stated, ``I don't think any administration has penetrated so deeply into the advisory committee structure as this one, and I think it matters....... If you start picking people by their ideology instead of their scientific credentials, you are inevitably reducing the quality of the advisory group.''
These actions are unacceptable. Expert advisory panels should be filled with scientific experts, not party loyalists. This is the only way our government will have the information it needs to make the best policies on behalf of the American people.
Our country's premier scientific organizations have affirmed the core principle that scientific advice should be provided by the best scientists. I urge my colleagues to endorse this principle and support this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the scientific peer review process at the National Institutes of Health and in opposition to the Neugebauer Amendment.
For the third year in a row, the House is considering an attempt to score cheap political points at the expense of NIH research. This year's targets are two grants from the National Institutes of Mental Health.
Both of these grants passed NIH's rigorous peer review process. This process involves two stages of review. In the first, scientists from leading institutions around the country make independent evaluations of each proposal. In the second stage, advisory councils with broad representation set priorities and approve the studies.
Our system of peer review is the envy of the world, and for good reason: It is based on science, and it is immune from political interference.
Congress should be proud of the NIH and what it has accomplished. Instead, this amendment strikes at the heart of scientific integrity at the agency.
Supporters will say that the amendment is just about two grants. In their view, apparently, NIH should not be funding research in animal models that can expand our understanding of brain disorders ..... or research on psychological distress and marriage that can reduce domestic violence.
Just looking at the two grants, I am far from persuaded. Marriage is a key institution in our society, and we should use science to understand how it can be strengthened. Research in animal models has provided important insights into brain disorders. I fail to see any justification in eliminating the funding these grants.
More fundamentally, it is inappropriate for us to be debating the merit of these grants in the U.S. House of Representatives. This is not a grant review panel. We are not scientific experts. Our country has succeeded by leaving scientific judgments to scientists, and we should continue to do so.
Our Nation's research community is watching this House today. Universities and researchers want to know if they can do their jobs without wondering whether Congress will step in at the last moment to slander their research and sabotage their careers.
The Administration is also opposed to this amendment. The Director of the National Institutes of Health Dr. Elias Zerhouni stated yesterday:
Defunding meritorious grants on the floor of Congress is unjustified scientific censorship. It undermines the historical strength of American science, which is based on our world renowned, apolitical, and transparent peer review process.
I hope these words give this House pause. Let us not vote for scientific censorship. Let us not undermine the historical strength of American science.
To paraphrase the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, let us not rub the gem of worldwide biomedical research in political dirt.
I urge you to join me in rejecting this ill-advised amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov