WASHINGTON, DC—US scientists need better ways to fight the influence of industry and politics on scientific inquiry, participants at a Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) meeting said on Monday (July 12).

"In the last year, we recognized that many science arenas are suffering from the same problems," CSPI Integrity in Science project director Merrill Goozner told The Scientist. CSPI held its first "science integrity" meeting in the summer of 2003.

Whether they are studying global warming, environmental toxins, or workplace safety, scientists who find their research unjustifiably shunned or suppressed face similar challenges from corporate and special interests, said Goozner. Uniting scientists and raising awareness, Goozner asserted, will help educate the public about abuses, prevent cynicism about an industry-influenced scientific enterprise, and ensure lasting public support for research.

Apparent conflicts of interest do affect public perception, according to a recent CSPI survey of 1000 adults. While 59% of respondents had confidence in a hypothetical statement from "a Harvard professor supported by government research" stating that a drug is safe, 48% had confidence when the statement was attributed just to a "Harvard professor," 41% when it was attributed to "a Harvard professor whose research is supported by drug companies," and 24% when the statement was attributed to "a Harvard professor who owns stock in drug companies."

Symposium speaker Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), who has a doctorate in clinical psychology, accused the current US administration of suppressing science. According to Baird, the administration has put limitations on the funding of non–politically correct research (such as some research on human sexuality), enforced constraints on the methods used, and has facilitated a culture of self-censorship.

Baird also took the scientific community to task for failing to respond to the suppression of science. "The scientific community has been asleep far, far too long," he said. "It's time they woke up." Baird contended that scientists should do more than write Op-Eds, but must "stand up for the democratic process itself."

In search of remedies, symposium speaker Richard Condit, general counsel for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, advocated the creation of a federal Science Integrity Protection Act that would reform federal "agency cultures" and establish codes of conduct.

"Right now, there's only patchwork [of measures] to protect scientists and only within specific areas," he told The Scientist. Condit admitted that such a measure could open the door to bureaucracy and frivolous complaints, but he claimed that that the benefits would outweigh any downside. The public and policymakers would greatly benefit from knowing about cases of inappropriate corporate influence that would otherwise remain hidden.

Henry Kelly, president of the Federation of American Scientists, thought an improved advisory mechanism for Congress was warranted. The idea of reinventing the Office of Technology Assessment does not have many supporters, but Kelly said other options might include expanding General Accounting Office experiments, broadening the role of the National Academy of Sciences, or relying on privately funded groups.

Jean Fruci, Democratic House Science Committee staff, called attention to an April 2004 General Accounting Office report titled Federal Advisory Committees: Additional Guidance Could Help Agencies Better Ensure Independence and Balance. It recommended in part that policies be put in place to better balance the committees advising federal agencies, the president, and Congress. The report said some departments have appointed members of industry and stakeholder groups, persons who are exempt from conflict-of-interest rules. Industry leaders may therefore theoretically be profiting from their own advice.