Association of Women in Science Magazine 28: 27,40.

It is hard to escape the impact of policy on science and society.  While we might assume or wish that science would inform policy development and implementation, we also know of situations in which policies or legal decisions influence how science is conducted and used. How a particular law is enacted can affect scientific research, as well as natural and cultural systems.

Scientists are not removed from constituents or funding agencies. Levels of funding and allocations to different Federal and State agencies shape the direction of research in many fields.  We compete for support in an environment where funding is inadequate to accomplish all of our goals.  Priorities within funding agencies often have implications for the kind of science that is conducted or the populations that are considered. For example, we know far more about the health of men and Caucasians than we do about the health of women and other ethnic groups. We also understand certain organisms far better than the health of various ecosystems, particularly in urban settings.

Let’s say we gained evidence for a previously unrecognized linkage between human health and the natural environment. What would it take to develop an organized plan to examine the relationships between the health of natural systems and humans? What Federal agencies might be involved in addressing such a problem? Would an interagency task force be formed and how would stakeholders be identified and organized?  If our experience with the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) is any indication, individual Federal agencies are not designed for cooperation and rarely have strong working relationships with other agencies.  When agencies try to work together, they quickly encounter the difficulty in having varying mandates. The different structures and locations of regional offices across the country would also present obstacles to communication. The Federal government is simply not organized in a way that facilitates comprehensive and collaborative approaches to large-scale problems.  Also, if NAPAP is any indication, policy makers in Federal agencies can influence which scientific disciplines receive the most emphasis.  For example, NAPAP funded atmospheric and economic modeling much more heavily than studies of the dynamics of watershed processes and the response of aquatic populations to a changing chemical climate.  Global climate change research is another case in which scientific funding is influenced by policy-makers operating in a political environment, which is a direct result of the way Federal agencies are organized. Politics at the congressional and agency levels influence the research agendas of virtually all issues with substantial economic consequences. 

While we would like to think of science as wholly objective in its methods and application, particularly when funding priorities have been established, let me describe two situations that give some pause.  First, a recent court decision (PROVIDE CITATION) gives trial judges the authority to determine who is qualified to present testimony as a scientific expert on a particular topic. Judges also have the power to decide what evidence might be presented.  On what basis does a judge assess what evidence is appropriate? How much should they know in order to make such an evaluation?  What if they studied a particular area, such as DNA-fingerprinting -- could they know too much and then begin interpreting the data presented? Judges have often played highly visible roles in important cases that involved scientific data and evidence, and their role is expanding.

Congress itself can legislate requirements that impact the conduct of science. For example, the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Publ. L. 105-277) included a provision concerning the data gathered under Federal grants and agreements awarded to academic institutions, hospitals, and other nonprofit organizations.  Although there had been no House or Senate hearings to discuss issues concerning the sharing of data, broad changes in policy were proposed by Congress.  While writing the rules associated with the act, the Office of Management and Budget published a revision of Circular A110, which appeared in the February 4, 1999 issue of the Federal Register.  These regulations specify that Basically, all data generated with Federal funding must be made available under the Freedom of Information Act.  Moreover, if a requestor feels he or she has been denied access or is entitled to more information prior to publication in a peer-reviewed journal, they can file a grievance in the courts.  While one could argue about when and what data should become public, both the process of passing such a sweeping change in policy and the legislation that ultimately resulted are of concern. The scientific community and Federal funding agencies were not consulted in the process.

Beyond the process, what are the potential implications for how science is done? Two key words, data and publication, are not defined in the act. Will the courts determine their meaning through a grievance filed under the Freedom of Information Act?  How will the confidentiality of human subjects be maintained?  If the confidentiality of human subjects no longer can be assured in perpetuity, potential subjects may be discouraged from participating in basic research on human health.  Some researchers are troubled by the potential for ongoing harassment by special interest groups, e.g. animal rights groups, and repeated requests for data, the costs of which are not typically part of grants.  Non-profit institutions cooperating with companies in the private sector may experience reluctance on the part of corporations to participate in partnerships if there is risk of disclosure of intellectual property that has commercial potential. Further, because projects on human health or the environment may have critical economic or political implications, they may be particularly subject to requests for information on data generated with Federal support.

Science cannot and should not be done in a vacuum. Both basic and applied research are investments in the future whose value must be promoted and whose conduct must be respected. If not, we may see expanded intrusions into Federal funding programs and science as a whole. We all must speak directly to the importance of scientific research to ensure that it is carefully conceived, responsive to the needs of society, and clearly communicated.