    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        SHAPING THE MESSAGE, DISTORTING
                        THE SCIENCE: MEDIA STRATEGIES TO
                            INFLUENCE SCIENCE POLICY

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND
                                   OVERSIGHT

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 28, 2007

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 110-17

                                   __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

         Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

                                     ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    34-337 PS                  WASHINGTON DC:  2007
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office  Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
    DC area (202)512-1800  Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                     HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
    LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California              Wisconsin
    MARK UDALL, Colorado                 LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
    DAVID WU, Oregon                     DANA ROHRABACHER, California
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              KEN CALVERT, California
    BRAD MILLER, North Carolina          ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    NICK LAMPSON, Texas                  FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
    GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona          JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
    JERRY MCNERNEY, California           W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
    PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania         JO BONNER, Alabama
    DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon               TOM FEENEY, Florida
    STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey        RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
    MICHAEL M. HONDA, California         BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
    JIM MATHESON, Utah                   DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
    BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky               MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
    CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana          BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana               ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
    CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
                                     ------

                  Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight

                   HON. BRAD MILLER, North Carolina, Chairman
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas             Wisconsin
    DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon               DANA ROHRABACHER, California
    STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey        TOM FEENEY, Florida
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               RALPH M. HALL, Texas
                    DAN PEARSON Subcommittee Staff Director
                      EDITH HOLLEMAN Subcommittee Counsel
                JAMES PAUL Democratic Professional Staff Member
              DOUG PASTERNAK Democratic Professional Staff Member
               KEN JACOBSON Democratic Professional Staff Member
                TOM HAMMOND Republican Professional Staff Member
                        STACEY STEEP Research Assistant

                                C O N T E N T S

                                 March 28, 2007

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Brad Miller, Chairman, Subcommittee
      on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................     3
        Written Statement............................................     3

    Statement by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Member,
      Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
      Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..........     4

    Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on
      Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..........     5

    Prepared Statement by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.,
      Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and
      Oversight, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................     6

    Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
      Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
      Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..........     8

                                   Witnesses:

    Mr. Sheldon Rampton, Research Director, Center for Media and
      Democracy, Madison, Wisconsin; Co-author, Trust Us We're
      Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your
      Future
        Oral Statement...............................................     8
        Written Statement............................................    11
        Biography....................................................    21

    Dr. James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological
      Oceanography, Harvard University; Board Member, Union of
      Concerned Scientists
        Oral Statement...............................................    21
        Written Statement............................................    23

    Mr. Tarek F. Maassarani, Staff Attorney, Government
      Accountability Project
        Oral Statement...............................................    40
        Written Statement............................................    41

    Mr. Jeff Kueter, President, George C. Marshall Institute
        Oral Statement...............................................    47
        Written Statement............................................    49
        Biography....................................................    57

    Discussion
      Climate Change: Industry Reaction..............................    57
      Climate Change: Scientific Reaction............................    57
      Climate Change: Government Reaction............................    58
      Funding for Climate Change Skeptics............................    59
      Scientists as Policy Advisors..................................    61
      Recommendations................................................    63
      Administration Position on Climate Change......................    65
      Climate Change Skeptics........................................    67
      Freedom of Information Act Requests............................    70
      Science Publishing Concerns....................................    70
      Political Pressure on Scientists...............................    73

                 Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Mr. Sheldon Rampton, Research Director, Center for Media and
      Democracy, Madison, Wisconsin; Co-author, Trust Us We're
      Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your
      Future.........................................................    82

    Dr. James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological
      Oceanography, Harvard University; Board Member, Union of
      Concerned Scientists...........................................    85

    Mr. Tarek F. Maassarani, Staff Attorney, Government
      Accountability Project.........................................    88

    Mr. Jeff Kueter, President, George C. Marshall Institute.........    89

                 Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

    Redacting the Science of Climate Change: An Investigative and
      Synthesis Report, by Tarek Maassarani, Government
      Accountability Project, March 2007.............................    92

    Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's
      Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science, Union of
      Concerned Scientists, January 2007.............................   231

    Atmosphere of Pressure: Political Interference in Federal Climate
      Science, Union of Concerned Scientists, Government
      Accountability Project, February 2007..........................   299

       SHAPING THE MESSAGE, DISTORTING THE SCIENCE: MEDIA STRATEGIES TO
                            INFLUENCE SCIENCE POLICY

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007

                      House of Representatives,
          Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
                           Committee on Science and Technology,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
    Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brad
    Miller [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

        Chairman Miller. The Committee will come to order on
    today's hearing, Shaping the Message, Distorting the Science:
    Media Strategies to Influence Science Policy.
        Ronald Reagan said that facts were stubborn things. Mr.
    Rohrabacher may have written those words. The topic of today's
    hearing is a consorted effort by opponents of measures to
    reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to bully scientific facts into
    submission, and, under intense pressure, the facts about global
    warming caved in and proved much more elastic, much less
    stubborn than Ronald Reagan had us believe. At least that is
    how it has appeared to the public. According to the New York
    Times, opponents of the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 began recruiting
    scientists who believed or at least would say that evidence of
    global warming was insubstantial and evidence that greenhouse
    gas emissions were a cause of global warming was especially
    dubious.
        Reviewed studies by climate scientists were almost
    unanimous in finding that global warming was real and that
    greenhouse gas emissions were a major part of it. But in the
    popular press the question was treated as controversial among
    scientists. Television news programs usually featured one
    scientist who explained the overwhelming consensus view of
    climate scientists and one made-for-television expert who took
    the opposite view. To the average citizen it looked like a real
    debate between scientific peers. In fact, the skeptics were in
    the indirect employ of the oil and gas industry and that
    obviously conflict of interest was rarely disclosed. Few paid
    skeptics did any original research, many were not even trained
    in the fields in which they claimed expertise, and most simply
    specialized in attacking as ``junk science'' the careful,
    legitimate research that was published in journals and tested
    by rigorous peer review.
        According to the testimony we will hear today, since 2001,
    the Bush Administration has been part of the effort to
    manipulate the public debate about climate change. The Bush
    Administration, at the urging also of the oil and gas industry,
    muzzled Government scientists whose research supported the
    consensus view of climate scientists, adding to the public
    impression that there was substantial doubt among scientists.
    Press officers whose experience was in politics, not science,
    editor-suppressed press releases about government research,
    acted as monitors for government scientists during press
    interviews, and required that politically-reliable scientists
    speak to the press for each agency.
        The approved agency spokesman sometimes treated as
    outlandish as urban legend, the considered view of most
    scientists at the agency. There is much at stake here. We need
    to rely on sound scientific research to inform our decision.
    Scientific research should have no party affiliation.
        At this time Mr. Sensenbrenner, the Ranking Member, is
    unable to be here today, but the Chair recognizes Mr.
    Rohrabacher, the distinguished Member from California, for his
    opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Miller follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Chairman Brad Miller
        Ronald Reagan said that facts were stubborn things. The topic of
    today's hearing is a concerted effort by opponents of measures to
    reduce greenhouse gas emissions to bully scientific facts into
    submission. And under intense pressure, the facts about global warming
    caved in, and proved much more elastic than Ronald Reagan had us
    believe.
        At least, that is how it has appeared to the public.
        According to the New York Times, opponents of the Kyoto Protocol in
    1998 began recruiting scientists who believed--or at least would say--
    that evidence of global warming was insubstantial, and evidence that
    greenhouse gas emissions were a cause of global warming was especially
    dubious. Peer-reviewed studies by climate scientists were almost
    unanimous in finding that global warming was real and that greenhouse
    gas emissions were a major cause of it.
        But in the popular press, the question was treated as controversial
    among scientists.
        Television news programs usually featured one scientist who
    explained the overwhelming consensus view of legitimate climate
    scientists, and one made-for-television ``expert'' who took the
    opposite view. To the average citizen, it looked like a real debate
    between scientific peers.
        In fact, the skeptics were in the indirect employ of the oil and
    gas industry, and that obvious conflict of interest was rarely
    disclosed. Few paid skeptics did any original research, many were not
    even trained in the fields in which they claimed expertise, and most
    simply specialized in attacking as ``junk science'' the careful,
    legitimate research that was published in learned journals and tested
    by rigorous peer review.
        According to the testimony we will hear today, since 2001 the Bush
    Administration has been part of the effort to manipulate public debate
    about climate change.
        The Bush Administration, at the urging of the oil and gas industry,
    muzzled government scientists whose research supported the consensus
    view of climate scientists, adding to the public impression that there
    was substantial doubt among scientists. Press officers whose experience
    was in politics, not science, edited or suppressed press releases about
    government research, acted as ``minders'' for government scientists
    during press interviews, and required that politically-reliable
    scientists speak to the press for each agency. The approved agency
    spokesmen sometimes treated as outlandish, as urban legend, the
    considered view of most scientists at the agency.
        There is much at stake here. We need to rely on sound,
    dispassionate scientific research to inform our decisions. Scientific
    research should have no party affiliation.

        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
    note if there was ever a case of the pot calling the kettle
    black, this hearing is that example. For Pete's sakes, we have
    had tens of billions of dollars over the last 20 years spent on
    climate change research, and in the last 10 years or so, it may
    have been 15 years, there is ample evidence, and I will be
    submitting these quotes for the record, of prominent scientists
    who have been complaining that they have not been able to get
    grants if they voice skepticism about the global warming
    ``consensus.''
        Mr. Chairman, the sound dispassionate science does not mean
    that you can dismiss people who disagree with a specific idea
    that is trying to be expressed by claiming that you represent a
    consensus. What I see happening more and more in this debate
    over global warming is that those people who are advocating
    this position end up not answering the charges of very
    respectable scientists, and again, one need only look at my
    website to find the names of hundreds of these prominent
    scientists from major universities who are not part of this so-
    called consensus but now instead of answering the specific
    scientific challenges to these theories, what we find is a
    dismissal in the public debate of even acknowledging that there
    is a point being made and the point then being dismissed.
        Now, I will have to tell you, that is about as arrogant and
    about as anti-scientific an attitude, and it is prevailing in
    this debate. I mean, I don't want to hear about consensus
    anymore, proving that someone is right. The fact is that there
    has been consensuses in science in the past that have been dead
    wrong, and one or two individuals without any government grants
    because all the grants were going to the consensus, have made
    it, managed to change public opinion and scientific opinion on
    various issues. History is replete with examples of this.
    Instead, today we have people who are claiming to the mantle of
    sound, dispassionate science who are dismissing the arguments
    of the other side.
        One of the ways they can do this is instead of answering
    the arguments, just challenge who is paying for your research.
    Well, first of all, not all research is being paid to those
    people who disagree with illegal, excuse me, say illegal
    immigration, with global warming. The fact is not all people
    who are paid for that research are necessarily wrong. I mean,
    the fact is that there are special interests on both sides of
    this issue. We have organizations, today we will hear
    complaints that the oil companies are providing a certain
    degree of support for research, trying to find answers to some
    of the arguments that are being presented. Let me note, that
    doesn't make their findings any less wrong. Their findings
    should be examined just as those arguments that are being
    presented on the pro-global warming side, which are being
    funded by, you know, perhaps at a degree 100 times more
    spending on that side by special interest groups, let me add,
    than on the side of those people who are trying to disprove
    that theory.
        So today I am anxious to get down to the nitty gritty with
    the witnesses. I want to see why the fact that we can claim a
    consensus, which I have been hearing about for 10 years, even
    as we hear more and more scientists saying, I was cut out of
    getting any kind of research contracts unless I agreed with
    global warming. I will put examples of this, five examples of
    this into the Congressional record and into the record of this
    hearing. These are people who, for example, who are the heads
    of major universities' science departments and members of--
    anyway, we will go through that. There is a member right here
    of the Director of Research for the Dutch, Royal Dutch
    Meteorological Institute who is now a Professor of aeronautical
    engineering at Penn State University, talks about as others
    from the University of Colorado, how people are, in the
    scientific community, are being basically influenced by the
    lure of getting Government grants to do research that will come
    up with a conclusion in favor of global warming, and that is
    skewing the research going on in this country.
        So in other words, this hearing is, if it is looking for
    scientists who are being pressured to do the wrong thing,
    perhaps we are looking in the wrong direction, because the
    pressure may be coming from exactly the opposite side, the side
    that is claiming to represent a consensus in order to suppress
    debate on this issue.
        Thank you very much.
        Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. We also have
    with us the Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee,
    Mr. Gordon of Tennessee. Mr. Gordon, I will recognize you for
    an opening statement.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Chairman Miller, and my friend,
    Ranking Member Rohrabacher. I am not sure who is the kettle and
    who is the pot here today, but I do know that gravity and
    climate change--global warming--are two things that are pretty
    well established.
        Just the other day the IPCC, which was composed of 113
    nations, unanimously, including the United States and President
    Bush, unanimously endorsed that within 100 percent certainty
    there is global warming. And so it really is tough to make good
    policy from bad information, and it seems that in this town
    there is a new industry developing, and that industry is to try
    to create doubt where there is little doubt, not for scientific
    integrity, but to provide a hook for special interests, then to
    try to create that doubt. And I think it is a legitimate area
    for discussion. I think this is the first of a good series of
    hearings, and I think this is an area where we need to shine
    some sunlight. And I compliment the Chairman for doing this,
    and I am sure that those folks who don't agree, they have got a
    witness here today and will have ample opportunity to discuss
    that.
        So, again, thank you for calling this hearing.
        Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. I think the only
    other Member we have here is Mr. Baird, and Mr. Baird, I doubt
    you have an opening statement, but if you do, you certainly--
    no. I am mistaken.
        Mr. Baird. I will make a very, very brief one. I thank the
    Chair for hosting this. I would just say that I have concerns
    about the possible abuse or misuse of science on all sides. I
    have seen it in both directions. I have seen members of
    industry hire hired guns to present a certain askew, and I have
    seen members of environmental groups do the reverse.
        As a scientist myself I place a high priority on scientific
    integrity, regardless of the source. And so I applaud the
    Chairman for hosting today's hearing, and I hope we will look
    at abuses of science on all sides, because to whatever extent
    the data are being spun or distorted, it does a disservice to
    this public. And so I applaud the Chair for hosting this, and I
    look forward to the testimony.
        Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Baird.
        [The prepared statement of Representative Sensenbrenner
    follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
        The title of today's hearing has an odious ring--``Shaping the
    Message, Distorting the Science.'' These accusations, leveled against
    ExxonMobil and against the Administration, have a grave tone. If it
    were not for the ubiquitous press headlines declaring the world's
    imminent demise from global warming, the title of today's hearing could
    have lead us to falsely conclude that the climate change debate was
    being stifled. I am now the Ranking Member on a Committee devoted
    almost entirely to climate change, and a recent poll by Time Magazine
    found that 88 percent of Americans believe that the Earth is getting
    warmer. All of this makes me wonder why we are here and what
    relationship this hearing has with reality.
        The alleged distortion of science is purportedly happening in two
    different ways. First, major industries, particularly ExxonMobil, are
    allegedly deceiving the masses by intentionally funding and trumpeting
    false science. Second, the Administration is allegedly curbing federal
    scientists from presenting scientific findings that are at odds with
    its policies. Before we start screaming ``McCarthyism,'' we should
    examine how little merit these accusations actually have.
        The first alleged distortion of science was purportedly perpetrated
    by ExxonMobil. The report ``Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air'' by the Union
    of Concerned Scientists (UCS) accuses ExxonMobil of using ``big
    tobacco's tactics to manufacture uncertainty on climate science.'' The
    crux of UCS' argument relies on $16 million that ExxonMobil spent over
    a period of seven years to promote science that UCS disagrees with. UCS
    concedes that what amounts to a little over $2 million per year is a
    modest sum of money for a company that records profits of $100 million
    per day, but nonetheless, argues that ExxonMobil has been ``remarkably
    effective at manufacturing uncertainty about the scientific consensus
    on global warming.''
        ExxonMobil's efforts seem especially remarkable in light of the
    fact that ExxonMobil spends significantly more money to fund projects
    that even UCS concedes are credible. To name a few, ExxonMobil has
    supported projects with Carnegie Mellon, the Hadley Centre for Climate
    Prediction, Columbia University, the Massachusetts Institute of
    Technology, the University of Texas, and Yale. In just one instance,
    ExxonMobil pledged $100 million over ten years for Stanford
    University's Global Climate and Energy Project, which seeks to develop
    ``new energy technologies that will permit the development of global
    energy systems with significantly lower global warming emissions.'' Is
    the work at Stanford University similarly suspect? How can we fairly
    accuse ExxonMobil of spreading a campaign of misinformation when it is
    funding a full spectrum of scientific research?
        The second method of scientific distortion purportedly comes from
    the Administration. Despite its accusatory title, the Government
    Accountability Project's report, ``Redacting the Science of Climate
    Change,'' concedes that it found ``no incidents of direct interference
    in climate change research.'' Regarding climate change scientists, the
    report concludes:

             [T]he investigation by the Government Accountability Project
            has uncovered no concrete evidence that political actors are
            directly and willfully interfering with this fundamental aspect
            of scientific work.

        Thus, despite its lengthy report and its year long investigation,
    GAP did not find any evidence that the Administration had interfered
    with climate change research.
        Just as the integrity of federal research is not attacked, there
    are no serious allegations that the Administration is concealing the
    results of this research from the public. When asked about scientific
    integrity at his agency, Robert Atlas, Director of the Atlantic
    Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (AOML) at the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, responded:

             I have not observed any political interference with our
            ability at AOML to communicate scientific information. All of
            our scientists are free to publish their results in the
            refereed scientific literature and to present high quality
            research at national or international conferences. Only the
            quality of the research is scrutinized and scientists are
            encouraged to present their conclusions that are supported by
            their research.

        This sentiment is echoed by the scientific community. Eighty-eight
    percent of federal climate scientists surveyed believe that Federal
    Government climate research is of generally excellent quality and 70
    percent believe that federal climate research is independent and
    impartial.
        So, to recap, there is no evidence that the policy-makers seek to
    control or influence scientific research, federal scientists are freely
    encouraged to publish the results of their research, and the relevant
    scientists overwhelmingly believe that their research is independent
    and impartial. And yet, the title of today's hearing is ``Shaping the
    message, Distorting the Science?'' Wouldn't ``Partisanship for the Sake
    of Partisanship'' have been more accurate? If the science is
    independent and the results are freely published, the only thing
    policy-makers are controlling is policy. Surely, the Federal Government
    has a right to oversee federal scientists and speak with a consistent
    message.
        Furthermore, both NASA and NOAA have taken steps to address
    potential problems. NASA introduced a media policy that was widely
    accepted by the scientific community, and NOAA plans to adopt a similar
    policy in the coming weeks. Additionally, the Inspectors General at the
    Department of Commerce and NASA, as well as the Government
    Accountability Office, all have ongoing investigations related to this
    topic. The Full Committee plans to hold a hearing on this topic after
    these reports are released. We will have an opportunity to examine any
    potential problems, in detail, when these reports are released.
        I believe very strongly in Congress' responsibility to hold the
    executive branch accountable. And I believe that the Federal Government
    should pursue policies that are both environmentally and economically
    sound. I look forward to an opportunity to leave these partisan
    investigations behind and focus on these shared goals.

        [The prepared statement of Representative Costello
    follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
        Good afternoon. Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing to
    listen to testimony from various witnesses on the extent to which
    political interference did or did not alter federal climate change
    research and the dissemination of scientific information.
        This is the first hearing by the Subcommittee addressing the issue
    of science and the media. For the past few years, there have been
    repeated reports about efforts within the science agencies to control
    which federal scientists get access to conferences or the press.
    Further, there have been additional reports of how big oil have used
    some of their profits to create the impression of doubt in the science
    surrounding climate change. Today's hearing will provide Members the
    opportunity to receive ``big picture'' testimony on what has happened
    and what we know.
        The manipulation of science for public relations or political
    advantage is intolerable and inevitably has a corrupting effect on
    science itself. I believe greater public transparency regarding the
    sponsorship of science and of organizations that claim to speak on
    scientific matters is critically important. Further, the public and
    policy-makers have a right and to know who is funding research and how
    it may be affecting the outcome of the science.
        I welcome our panel of witnesses and look forward to their
    testimony.

        Chairman Miller. I will now introduce our witnesses. First
    is Mr. Sheldon Rampton, the Research Director at the Center for
    Media and Democracy and co-author of Trust Us, We're Experts:
    How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future.
        Second is Dr. James McCarthy, the Alexander Agassiz
    Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University, and
    President-Elect of the American Association for the Advancement
    of Science and a member of the Board of the Union of Concerned
    Scientists.
        Mr. Tarek Maassarani, Staff Attorney with the Government
    Accountability Project and author of the report, Redacting the
    Science of Climate Change, and finally, Mr. Jeff Kueter,
    President of the George C. Marshall Institute.
        You have all submitted, I think, written testimony, which
    will be made part of the record. Thank you for that. Your oral
    testimony will be limited to five minutes. And after the entire
    panel has testified the Members of the Committee will have five
    minutes each to ask questions.
        It is the practice of this subcommittee to take testimony
    under oath. Do any of you have any objection to taking an oath,
    swearing an oath? If not, you also have the right to be
    represented by counsel. Do any of you have counsel here? All
    right. If you would all now please stand and raise your right
    hand. Thank you.
        [Witnesses sworn]
        Chairman Miller. Thank you. We will begin with Mr. Rampton.

    STATEMENT OF MR. SHELDON RAMPTON, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
     MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY, MADISON, WISCONSIN; CO-AUTHOR, TRUST US
      WE'RE EXPERTS: HOW INDUSTRY MANIPULATES SCIENCE AND GAMBLES
                            WITH YOUR FUTURE

        Mr. Rampton. Well, thank you very much for holding this
    hearing and for inviting me to testify. I am going to speak
    about the general practice of science manipulation for public
    relations purposes. I understand some of the other speakers
    will focus more specifically on the issue of global warming.
        The power that science wields in modern society is a
    reflection of the fact that it has shown the ability to create
    knowledge that is as reliable as any product of human endeavor.
    The very prestige of science, however, also makes it an
    attractive tool for manipulating public opinion. You can find
    science being used for that purpose, for example, in the
    advertisements and television commercials which announce that
    laboratory tests prove toothpaste X whitens teeth whiter or
    that nine out of 10 doctors agree that brand X is better than
    brand Y.
        Advertising, however, is only the most visible aspect of a
    variety of modern persuasive techniques that include public
    relations and lobbying, all branches of what should more
    properly be termed a modern propaganda industry. Some of these
    techniques are actually more subtle and hidden than
    advertising. The use of endorsements by scientific experts to
    sell a product or policy is often done without public
    disclosure that the experts have been recruited or even paid to
    do so. This technique has become so common, in fact, that the
    public relations industry actually has a standard term for it.
    They call it the third-party technique.
        The idea behind his phrase is that the PR firm's client,
    typically some company, industry, or other special interest, is
    the first party, interested in delivering some persuasive
    message to a second party, the audience. However, experience
    shows that if the message is seen as coming directly from the
    client, the audience will greet the message with skepticism
    because it is so obviously self-serving. To give the message
    more credibility, therefore, lobbyists, public relations firms
    finds that it helps if they can use a third party who seems
    independent to deliver that message for them. One public
    relations executive has explained the third-party technique as
    ``put your words in someone else's mouth.'' It turns out that
    the prestige and power of science makes scientists, academics,
    doctors, and other professional experts very useful third-party
    spokespersons, if they can be recruited for this purpose.
        Sometimes this technique is used to exaggerate the benefits
    of a product. Other times it is used to create doubt about a
    product's hazards. In public policy debates it can be used to
    cast doubt about the seriousness of problems requiring
    government action. Conversely, sometimes it is used to
    exaggerate dangers in order to build pressure for legislation
    or other government action that the client desires.
        Scientific journals are now routinely used to serve
    companies' marketing and public policy objectives, sometimes
    with serious negative consequences for the public. The tobacco
    industry, of course, is well known for its public relations
    manipulations of science. Many instances of this have now
    become public knowledge, thanks to whistleblowers and lawsuits
    that resulted in the public release of millions of pages of
    previously secret industry documents. The first clear
    scientific evidence showing the link between smoking and lung
    cancer emerged in the early 1950s, but public recognition of
    the extent of his hazard was delayed for decades due to
    aggressive public relations by the tobacco industry. And even
    today the industry is involved in rearguard efforts to downplay
    the dangers of hazards such as secondhand smoke.
        A few years ago, for example, documents came to light
    regarding an industry-funded campaign in the 1990s to plant
    sympathetic letters and articles in influential medical
    journals. Tobacco companies had secretly paid 13 scientists a
    total of $156,000 simple to sign their names to these letters
    and articles. One biostatistician received $10,000 for writing
    a single, 8-page letter that was published in the Journal of
    the American Medical Association. Another received $20,000 for
    writing four letters and an opinion piece to the Lancet, the
    Journal of the National Cancer Institute and the Wall Street
    Journal. These scientists did not even have to write the
    letters themselves. The tobacco industry's law firms did the
    actual drafting and editing. So in essence they were being paid
    for their autographs.
        The tobacco industry is hardly alone, however, in
    attempting to manipulate the scientific publishing process. As
    the Wall Street Journal reported in December, 2005, ``Many of
    the articles that appears in scientific journals under the
    byline of prominent academics are actually written by
    ghostwriters in the pay of drug companies.'' Used by doctors to
    guide their care of patients, these ``seemingly objective
    articles are often part of a marketing campaign.'' To promote
    the diet-drug combo fen-phen, for example, Wyeth-Ayerst
    Laboratories commissioned ghostwriters to write 10 articles for
    publication in peer-reviewed medical journals. After fen-phen
    was linked to heart valve damage and lung disease, the company
    was forced to pull the drugs from the market. Subsequent
    lawsuits filed by injured fen-phen users unearthed internal
    company documents showing that the drug company had also edited
    the draft articles to play down and occasionally delete
    descriptions of side effects. The final articles were published
    under the names of prominent researchers, one of whom claimed
    later in courtroom testimony that he had no idea that a
    pharmaceutical company had commissioned the article on which
    his own name appeared. ``It is really deceptive,'' he told the
    court. ``It sort of makes you uneasy.''
        So how does a doctor's name actually appear as the primary
    author of a study without him knowing who sponsored it? The
    process in this case involved an intermediary hired by the drug
    company names Excerpta Medica. Excerpta received $20,000 for
    each article which was written by its ghostwriters. It then
    lined up well-known university researchers and paid them
    honoraria of $1,000 to $1,500 to edit their drafts and lend
    their names to the final work. One of these brand-name
    researchers even sent a letter back praising Excerpta's
    ghostwriting skills. He joked, ``Perhaps I can get you to write
    all my papers for me! My only general comment is that this
    piece may make fen-phen sound better than it really is.''
        A similar pattern recurs on issue after issue; air quality,
    water quality, product safety, and nutrition. One internal
    memorandum from a public relations firm to a client boasted
    about the range of issues which they managed for ``the
    following industries impacted by science and environmental
    policy decisions.''
        Chairman Miller. Mr. Rampton, if you could summarize in
    just a sentence or two, please.
        Mr. Rampton. Just a sentence or two? All right. The
    manipulation of science for public relations or political
    advantage inevitably has a corrupting effect on science itself.
    It undermines the integrity and objectivity of scientific
    research. What is needed, therefore, is greater public
    transparency regarding the sponsorship of science and of
    organizations that claim to speak on scientific matters.
        [Statement of Mr. Rampton follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Sheldon Rampton
        The power that science wields in modern society is a reflection of
    its ability to create knowledge that is as reliable as any product of
    human endeavor. The very prestige of science, however, also makes it an
    attractive tool for manipulating public opinion. You can find science
    being used for that purpose, for example, in the advertisements and
    television commercials which announce that ``laboratory tests prove
    toothpaste X whitens teeth whiter,'' or ``nine out of ten doctors
    agree'' that brand X is better than brand Y. Advertising, however, is
    only the most visible aspect of a variety of modern persuasive
    techniques that include public relations and lobbying--all branches of
    what should more properly be termed a modern propaganda industry. Some
    of these techniques are actually more subtle and hidden than
    advertising. The use of endorsements by scientific experts to sell a
    product or policy is often done without public disclosure that the
    experts have been recruited or paid to do so. This technique has become
    so common that the public relations industry has a standard term for
    it. They call it the ``third party technique.''
        The idea behind this phrase is that the PR firm's client--typically
    some company, industry or other special interest--is the ``first
    party'' interested in delivering some persuasive message to a ``second
    party,'' its audience. However, experience shows that if the message is
    seen as coming directly from the client, the audience will treat the
    message with skepticism because it is so obviously self-serving. To
    give the message more credibility, therefore, lobbyists and PR firms
    find that it helps if they can use a third party who seems independent
    to deliver it for them. One public relations executive has explained
    the third party technique as, ``Put your words in someone else's
    mouth.'' It turns out that the prestige and power of science makes
    scientists, academics, doctors and other professional experts very
    useful third-party spokespersons if they can be recruited for this
    purpose.
        Sometimes this technique is used to exaggerate the benefits of a
    product. Other times it is used to create doubt about a product's
    hazards. In public policy debates, it can be used to cast doubt about
    the seriousness of problems requiring government action. Conversely,
    sometimes it is used to exaggerate dangers in order to build pressure
    for legislation or other government action that the client desires.
        Scientific journals are now routinely used to serve companies'
    marketing and public policy objectives, sometimes with serious
    consequences. The tobacco industry is well known for its PR
    manipulations of science. Many instances of this have now become public
    knowledge thanks to whistleblowers and lawsuits that resulted in the
    public release of millions of pages of once-secret industry documents.
    Clear scientific evidence showing the link between smoking and lung
    cancer first emerged in the early 1950s. Public recognition of the
    extent of this hazard was delayed for decades due to aggressive public
    relations by the tobacco industry, and even today the industry is
    involved in rear-guard efforts to downplay the dangers of hazards such
    as secondhand smoke. A few years ago, for example, documents came to
    light regarding an industry-sponsored campaign in the early 1990s to
    plant sympathetic letters and articles in influential medical journals.
    Tobacco companies had secretly paid 13 scientists a total of $156,000
    simply to write them. One biostatistician received $10,000 for writing
    a single, eight-paragraph letter that was published in the Journal of
    the American Medical Association. Another received $20,137 for writing
    four letters and an opinion piece to the Lancet, the Journal of the
    National Cancer Institute and the Wall Street Journal. These scientists
    did not even have to write the letters themselves. The tobacco
    industry's law firms did the actual drafting and editing.
        The tobacco industry is hardly alone, however, in attempting to
    manipulate the scientific publishing process. As the Wall Street
    Journal reported in December 2005, ``Many of the articles that appear
    in scientific journals under the byline of prominent academics are
    actually written by ghostwriters in the pay of drug companies.'' Used
    by doctors to guide their care of patients, these ``seemingly objective
    articles. . .are often part of a marketing campaign.'' To promote the
    diet-drug combo fen-phen, for example, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories
    commissioned ghostwriters to write ten articles for publication in
    peer-reviewed medical journals. After fen-phen was linked to heart
    valve damage and lung disease, the company was forced to pull the drugs
    from the market. Subsequent lawsuits filed by injured fen-phen users
    unearthed internal company documents showing that Wyeth-Ayerst had also
    edited the draft articles to play down and occasionally delete
    descriptions of side effects. The final articles were published under
    the names of prominent researchers, one of whom claimed later in
    courtroom testimony that he had no idea that the pharmaceutical company
    had commissioned the article on which his own name appeared. ``It's
    really deceptive,'' he told the court. ``It sort of makes you uneasy.''
        How does a doctor's name appear an article without him knowing who
    sponsored it? The process involved an intermediary hired by Wyeth-
    Ayerst named Excerpta Medica. Excerpta received $20,000 for each
    article written by its ghostwriters. It then lined up well-known
    university researchers and paid them honoraria of $1,000 to $1,500 to
    edit the drafts and lend their names to the final work. One of the
    name-brand researchers even sent a letter back praising Excerpta's
    ghostwriting skills. He joked, ``Perhaps I can get you to write all my
    papers for me! My only general comment is that this piece may make
    [fen-phen] sound better than it really is.''
        A similar pattern recurs on issue after issue--air quality, water
    quality, product safety, and nutrition. Scientists are seen by industry
    not as researchers who objectively study phenomena but as potential
    spokespersons to help promote positions favorable to their sponsors.
    This strategy has become so common that sometimes industry PR people
    use the term ``independent scientist'' without apparently thinking
    about what the word ``independent'' actually means. A few years ago,
    the New York Times obtained some leaked documents from the American
    Petroleum Institute, in which the Institute detailed its plans to spend
    $600,000 to develop a team of pro-industry climate scientists who would
    dispute the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
    They planned to, in their words, ``identify, recruit and train a team
    of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach.''
    Somehow the authors of this plan never bothered to ask themselves how a
    scientist who has been specifically recruited and trained by the
    petroleum industry could be honestly described as ``independent.''
        A converse strategy aims at suppressing independent scientific
    views, discoveries and evidence that are inconvenient to the industry
    or its lobbying interests. For example, the House Committee on
    Oversight and Government Reform recently released documents showing
    ``hundreds of instances'' where a former and current oil industry
    lobbyist had edited government reports to downplay the impact of human
    activities on global warming. The edits were by Philip A. Cooney, the
    former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental
    Quality. Cooney himself has no scientific credentials. He worked for
    the American Petroleum Institute prior to being appointed to his
    position within the Bush administration. He now works for ExxonMobil.
        The manipulation of science for public relations or political
    advantage inevitably has a corrupting effect on science itself. It
    undermines the integrity and objectivity of scientific research. It
    creates confusion in the minds of policy-makers and the general public.
    What is needed, therefore, is greater public transparency regarding the
    sponsorship of science and of organizations that claim to speak on
    scientific matters. The public and policy-makers have a right and to
    know who is funding research, what strings are attached to that
    funding, and how it may be affecting the information we use to make
    decisions--especially decisions on policy matters that affect us all.
               PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS/VOLUME 117/JULY-AUGUST, 2002

                  Research Funding, Conflicts of Interest, and

                  the ``Meta-methodology'' of Public Relations

                      By Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber
        The power that science wields in modern society is a reflection of
    its ability to create knowledge that is as reliable as any product of
    human endeavor. Its very prestige, however, also makes it an attractive
    tool for public relations and marketing purposes. We are all familiar
    with the commercials announcing that ``laboratory tests prove'' or
    ``nine out of ten doctors agree'' that brand X is better than brand Y.
    Advertising, however, is only the most visible aspect of modern
    industry propaganda . Many similar endorsement strategies have been
    developed by the public relations industry, which prides itself on
    working invisibly behind the scenes to place self-serving messages for
    its clients in the mouths of seemingly independent third party experts.
    Within the PR industry, in fact, this strategy has come to be known as
    the ``third party technique.'' Merrill Rose, Executive Vice-President
    of the Porter/Novelli PR firm, explains the technique succinctly: ``Put
    your words in someone else's mouth.'' \1\ Sometimes the technique is
    used to exaggerate the benefits of a product. Other times it is used to
    create doubt about a product's hazards, or about criticisms that have
    been made of a company's business practices.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Merrill Rose, ``Activism in the 90s: Changing Roles for Public
    Relations,'' Public Relations Quarterly, Vol. 36, no. 3 (1991), pp. 28-
    32.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        PR firms use a variety of quasi-scientific methodologies
    themselves, such as opinion polling, demographics and psychology. At
    its core, however, public relations operates on assumptions that are
    antithetical to science. The ideological underpinning of the scientific
    endeavor is a belief that ``the truth is out there'' and that it can be
    grasped through rational human inquiry. ``Spin,'' however, is the art
    of arranging appearances, not substance. ``In this era of exploding
    media technologies, there is no truth except the truth you create for
    yourself,'' says Richard Edelman at Edelman Worldwide, one of the
    world's largest PR firms.\2\ As advertising executive Jack Trout
    observes, ``Marketing is a battle of perception, not products. Truth
    has no bearing on the issue.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Randall Rothenberg, ``The Age of Spin,'' Esquire, December
    1996, p. 71.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Modern science considers itself scientific because it adheres to
    certain methodologies. It uses quantitative methods and measurable
    phenomena; its data is empirically derived and verifiable by others
    through experiments that can be reproduced; and, finally, its
    practitioners are impartial. Whereas ideological thinkers promulgate
    dogmas and defend them in the face of evidence to the contrary,
    scientists work with hypotheses which they modify when the evidence so
    dictates. When public relations recruits scientists to serve as ``third
    party experts,'' however, the techniques of PR function as a ``meta-
    methodology'' that can have a corrupting influence on research.

    Publication Bias

        The tobacco industry is well known for its PR manipulations of
    science, many of which have become public knowledge thanks to
    whistleblowers and lawsuits that have resulted in the public release of
    millions of pages of once-secret industry documents. In 1998, for
    example, documents came to light regarding an industry-sponsored
    campaign in the early 1990s to plant sympathetic letters and articles
    in influential medical journals. Tobacco companies had secretly paid 13
    scientists a total of $156,000 simply to write a few letters to
    influential medical journals. One biostatistician, Nathan Mantel of
    American University in Washington, received $10,000 for writing a
    single, eight-paragraph letter that was published in the Journal of the
    American Medical Association. Cancer researcher Gio Batta Gori received
    $20,137 for writing four letters and an opinion piece to the Lancet,
    the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and the Wall Street
    Journal. The scientists didn't even have to write the letters
    themselves. Two tobacco-industry law firms were available to do the
    actual drafting and editing. In some cases, scientists were paid not
    just to write letters but entire scientific articles. In one case, the
    tobacco industry paid $25,000 to a single scientist to write an article
    for the publication Risk Analysis. The same fee went to former EPA
    official John Todhunter and tobacco consultant W. Gary Flamm for an
    article titled ``EPA Process, Risk Assessment-Risk Management Issues''
    which they published in the Journal of Regulatory Toxicology and
    Pharmacology, where Flamm served as a member of the journal's editorial
    board. Not only did they fail to disclose that their article had been
    commissioned by the tobacco industry, journal editor C. Jelleff Carr
    later admitted he ``never asked that question, `Were you paid to write
    that?' I think it would be almost improper for me to do it.'' \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ David Hanners, ``Scientists Were Paid to Write Letters: Tobacco
    Industry Sought to Discredit EPA Report,'' St. Louis Pioneer Dispatch,
    August 4, 1998.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The tobacco industry is hardly alone, however, in attempting to
    influence the scientific publishing process. A similar example of
    industry influence came to light in 1999 regarding the diet-drug combo
    fen-phen, developed by Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories. Wyeth-Ayerst had
    commissioned ghostwriters to write ten articles promoting fen-phen as a
    treatment for obesity. Two of the ten articles were actually published
    in peer-reviewed medical journals before studies linked fen-phen to
    heart valve damage and an often-fatal lung disease, forcing the company
    to pull the drugs from the market in September 1997. In lawsuits filed
    by injured fen-phen users, internal company documents were subpoenaed
    showing that Wyeth-Ayerst had also edited the draft articles to play
    down and occasionally delete descriptions of side effects associated
    with the drugs. The final articles were published under the names of
    prominent researchers, one of whom claimed later that he had no idea
    that Wyeth had commissioned the article on which his name appeared.
    ``It's really deceptive,'' said Dr. Albert J. Stunkard of the
    University of Pennsylvania, whose article was published in the American
    Journal of Medicine in February 1996. ``It sort of makes you uneasy.''
    \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Charles Ornstein, ``Fen-phen Maker Accused of Funding Journal
    Articles,'' Dallas Morning News, May 23, 1999, p. 1A.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        How does a doctor's name appear an article without him knowing who
    sponsored it? The process involved an intermediary hired by Wyeth-
    Ayerst--Excerpta Medica, Inc., which received $20,000 for each article.
    Excerpta's ghost writers produced first-draft versions of the articles
    and then lined up well-known university researchers like Stunkard and
    paid them honoraria of $1,000 to $1,500 to edit the drafts and lend
    their names to the final work. Stunkard says Excerpta did not tell him
    that the honorarium originally came from Wyeth. One of the name-brand
    researchers even sent a letter back praising Excerpta's ghostwriting
    skills. ``Let me congratulate you and your writer on an excellent and
    thorough review of the literature, clearly written,'' wrote Dr. Richard
    L. Atkinson, professor of medicine and nutritional science at the
    University of Wisconsin Medical School. ``Perhaps I can get you to
    write all my papers for me! My only general comment is that this piece
    may make dexfenfluramine sound better than it really is.'' \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``The whole process strikes me as egregious,'' said Jerome P.
    Kassirer, then-editor of the New England Journal of Medicine--``the
    fact that Wyeth commissioned someone to write pieces that are favorable
    to them, the fact that they paid people to put their names on these
    things, the fact that people were willing to put their names on it, the
    fact that the journals published them without asking questions.'' Yet
    it would be a mistake to imagine that these failures of the scientific
    publishing system reflect greed or laziness on the part of the
    individuals involved. Naivete might be a better word to describe the
    mindset of the researchers who participate in this sort of arrangement.
    In any case, the Wyeth-Ayerst practice is not an isolated incident.
    ``This is a common practice in the industry. It's not particular to
    us,'' said Wyeth spokesman Doug Petkus.
        ``Pharmaceutical companies hire PR firms to promote drugs,'' agrees
    science writer Norman Bauman. ``Those promotions include hiring
    freelance writers to write articles for peer-reviewed journals, under
    the byline of doctors whom they also hire. This has been discussed
    extensively in the medical journals and also in the Wall Street
    Journal, and I personally know people who write these journal articles.
    The pay is OK--about $3,000 for a six- to ten-page journal article.''
        Even the New England Journal of Medicine--often described as the
    world's most prestigious medical journal--has been involved in
    controversies regarding hidden economic interests that shape its
    content and conclusions. In 1986, for example, NEJM published one study
    and rejected another that reached opposite conclusions about the
    antibiotic amoxicillin, even though both studies were based on the same
    data. Scientists involved with the first, favorable study had received
    $1.6 million in grants from the drug manufacturer, while the author of
    the critical study had refused corporate funding. NEJM proclaimed the
    pro-amoxicillin study the ``authorized'' version, and the author of the
    critical study underwent years of discipline and demotions from the
    academic bureaucracy at his university, which also took the side of the
    industry-funded scientist. Five years later, the dissenting scientist's
    critical study finally found publication in the Journal of the American
    Medical Association, and other large-scale testing of children showed
    that those who took amoxicillin actually experienced lower recovery
    rates than children who took no medicine at all.\6\ In 1989, NEJM came
    under fire again when it published an article downplaying the dangers
    of exposure to asbestos while failing to disclose that the author had
    ties to the asbestos industry.\7\ In 1996, a similar controversy
    emerged when the journal ran an editorial touting the benefits of diet
    drugs, again failing to note that the editorial's authors were paid
    consultants for companies that sell the drugs.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Robert Bell, Impure Science: Fraud, Compromise and Political
    Influence in Scientific Research (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons,
    Inc., 1992), pp. 190-219.
        \7\ Brooke T. Mossman and J. Bernard L. Gee, ``Asbestos-related
    Diseases,'' New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 320, no. 26 (June 29,
    1989), pp. 1721-1730. For a detailed critique of this incident, see
    Paul Brodeur and Bill Ravanesi, ``Old Tricks,'' The Networker
    (newsletter of the Science and Environmental Health Network), June
    1998.
        \8\ For NEJM's response to the controversy over this incident, see
    Marcia Angell and Jerome P. Kassirer, ``Editorials and Conflicts of
    Interest,'' New England Journal of Medicine, No. 335 (1996), pp. 1055-
    1056. For the researchers' side, see JoAnn E. Mason, ``Adventures in
    Scientific Discourse,'' Epidemiology, Vol. 8, no. 3 (May 1997).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In November 1997, questions of conflict of interest arose again
    when the NEJM published a scathing review of Sandra Steingraber's book,
    Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer. Authored by Jerry H.
    Berke, the review described Steingraber as ``obsessed. . .with
    environmental pollution as the cause of cancer'' and accused her of
    ``oversights and simplifications. . .biased work. . .notoriously poor
    scholarship. . .. The focus on environmental pollution and agricultural
    chemicals to explain human cancer has simply not been fruitful nor
    given rise to useful preventive strategies. . .. Living Downstream
    frightens, at times misinforms, and then scorns genuine efforts at
    cancer prevention through lifestyle change. The objective of Living
    Downstream appears ultimately to be controversy.'' \9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Jerry H. Berke, ``Living Downstream'' (book review), New
    England Journal of Medicine, No. 337 (1997), p. 1562.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Berke was identified alongside the review as ``Jerry H. Berke, MD,
    MPH.'' The NEJM failed to disclose, however, that Berke was director of
    toxicology for W.R. Grace, one of the world's largest chemical
    manufacturers and a notorious polluter. A leading manufacturer of
    asbestos-containing building products, W.R. Grace has been a defendant
    in several thousand asbestos-related cancer lawsuits and has paid
    millions of dollars in related court judgments. It is probably best-
    known as the company that polluted the drinking water of the town of
    Woburn, Massachusetts, and later paid an $8 million out-of-court
    settlement to the families of seven Woburn children and one adult who
    contracted leukemia after drinking contaminated water. During the
    Woburn investigation, Grace was caught in two felony lies to the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency.
        In response to criticism of these lapses, NEJM editor Jerome P.
    Kassirer insisted that his journal's conflict-of-interest policy was
    ``the tightest in the business.'' \10\ The sad fact is that this boast
    is probably correct. In 1996, Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts University did a
    study of journal disclosures that dug into the industry connections of
    the authors of 789 scientific papers published by 1,105 researchers in
    14 leading life science and biomedical journals. In 34 percent of the
    papers, at least one of the chief authors had an identifiable financial
    interest connected to the research, and Krimsky observed that the
    estimate of 34 percent was probably lower than the true level of
    financial conflict of interest, since he was unable to check if the
    researchers owned stock or had received consulting fees from the
    companies involved in commercial applications of their research. None
    of these financial interests were disclosed in the journals, where
    readers could see them.\11\ In 1999, a larger study by Krimsky examined
    62,000 articles published in 210 different scientific journals and
    found only one half of one percent of the articles included information
    about the authors' research-related financial ties. Although all of the
    journals had a formal requirement for disclosure of conflicts of
    interest, 142 of the journals had not published a single disclosure
    during 1997, the year under study.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ ``Medical Journal Apologizes for Ethics Blunder,'' Washington
    Post, December 28, 1997.
        \11\ Sheldon Krimsky et al., ``Scientific Journals and Their
    Authors' Financial Interests: A Pilot Study,'' Psychother Psychosom,
    Vol. 67, nos. 4-5 (July-October 1998), pp. 194-201.
        \12\ Reported in Ralph T. King, ``Medical Journals Rarely Disclose
    Researchers' Ties, Drawing Ire,'' Wall Street Journal, February 2,
    1999. See also Sheldon Krimsky, ``Will Disclosure of Financial
    Interests Brighten the Image of Entrepreneurial Science?'' (Abstract A-
    29), in 1999 AAAS Annual Meeting and Science Innovation Exposition:
    Challenges for a New Century, C.J. Boyd, ed., American Association for
    the Advancement of Science.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Corporate-sponsored scientific symposiums provide another means for
    manipulating the content of medical journals. In 1992, the New England
    Journal of Medicine published a survey of 625 such symposiums which
    found that 42 percent of them were sponsored by a single pharmaceutical
    sponsor. There was a correlation, moreover, between single-company
    sponsorship and practices which commercialize or corrupt the scientific
    review process, including symposiums with misleading titles designed to
    promote a specific brand-name product. ``Industry-sponsored symposia
    are promotional in nature and. . .journals often abandon the peer-
    review process when they publish symposiums,'' the survey
    concluded.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Lisa A. Bero, Alison Galbraith and Drummond Rennie, ``The
    Publication of Sponsored Symposiums in Medical Journals,'' New England
    Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327, no. 16 (October 15, 1992), pp. 1135-
    1140.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Does Money Matter?

        As these examples illustrate, many of the factors that bias
    scientific results are considerably more subtle than outright bribery
    or fraud. Scientists can be naive about politics, PR and other external
    factors shaping their work, and may become indignant at the suggestion
    that their results are shaped by their funding. But science does not
    occur in a vacuum. In studying animal populations, biologists use the
    term ``selection pressure'' to describe the influence that
    environmental conditions exert upon the survival of certain genetic
    traits over others. Within the population of scientists, a similar type
    of selection pressure occurs as industry and government support,
    combined with the vicissitudes of political fashion, determine which
    careers flourish and which languish.
        The most dramatic trend influencing the direction of science during
    the past century has been its increasing dependence on funding from
    government and industry. Unlike the ``gentleman scientists'' of the
    nineteenth century who enjoyed financial independence that allowed them
    to explore their personal scientific interests with considerable
    freedom, today's scientists are engaged in expensive research that
    requires the support of sponsors with deep pockets. A number of factors
    have contributed to this change, from the rise of big government to the
    militarization of scientific research to the emergence of transnational
    corporations as important patrons of research.
        The last quarter of the twentieth century in particular has seen
    increasing commercialization of science, as the rise of the so-called
    ``knowledge-based'' industries--computers, telecommunications and
    biotechnology--prompted a wide variety of corporate research
    initiatives. In 1970, Federal Government funding for research and
    development totaled $14.9 billion, compared to $10.4 billion from
    industry. By 1997, government expenditures were $62.7 billion compared
    to $133.3 billion from industry. After adjusting for inflation,
    government spending had barely risen, while business spending more than
    tripled.\14\ Much of this increase, moreover, took place through
    corporate partnerships with universities and other academic
    institutions, blurring the traditional line between private and public
    research. Between 1981 and 1995, the proportion of U.S. industry-
    produced articles that were coauthored with at least one academic
    researcher roughly doubled, from 21.6 percent to 40.8 percent. The
    increase was even more dramatic in the field of biomedical research,
    where the number of coauthored articles quadrupled.\15\ According to
    the Association of American Medical Colleges, corporate sponsorship of
    university medical research has grown from about 5 percent in the early
    1980s to as much as 25 percent in some places today.\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ ``U.S. Expenditures for Research and Development by Source of
    Funds and Performer,'' Wall Street Journal Almanac 1999 (New York, NY:
    Ballantine Books, 1998), p. 363.
        \15\ ``Industry Trends in Research Support and Links to Public
    Research,'' National Science Board, 1998, , (July 25, 2000).
        \16\ Melissa B. Robinson, ``Medical School Faculty Say Budget Cuts
    Are Hurting Teaching,'' Associated Press, May 19, 1999.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Corporate funding has transformed scientific and engineering
    knowledge into commodities in the new ``information economy,'' giving
    rise to an elaborate web of interlocking directorates between corporate
    and academic boardrooms and an endless variety of university-industry
    partnerships and ``technology transfers,'' from business-funded
    research parks to fee-for-service work such as drug trials carried out
    on university campuses.
        ``More and more we see the career trajectories of scholars,
    especially of scientists, rise and fall not in relation to their
    intellectually-judged peer standing, but rather in relation to their
    skill at selling themselves to those, especially in the biomedical
    field, who have large sums of money to spend on a well-marketed promise
    of commercial viability,'' observed Martin Michaelson, an attorney who
    has represented Harvard University and a variety of other leading
    institutions of higher education. ``It is a kind of gold rush,''
    Michaelson said at a 1999 symposium sponsored by the American
    Association for the Advancement of Science. ``More and more we see
    incentives to hoard, not disseminate, new knowledge; to suppress, not
    publish, research results; to titillate prospective buyers, rather than
    to make full disclosure to academic colleagues. And we see today, more
    than ever before, new science first--generally, very carefully, and
    thinly--described in the fine print of initial public offerings and SEC
    filings, rather than in the traditional, fuller loci of academic
    communication.'' \17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Remarks by Martin Michaelson, delivered at AAAS symposium on
    Secrecy in Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA, March 29, 1999 , (July 25, 2000).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Industry-academic entanglements can take many forms, some of which
    are not directly related to funding for specific research.
    Increasingly, scientists are being asked to sit on the board of
    directors of for-profit companies, a service which requires relatively
    little time but can pay very well--often in excess of $50,000 per year.
    Other private-sector perks may include gifts to researchers of lab
    equipment or cash, or generous payment for speeches, travel and
    consulting. The benefits that come with these sorts of arrangements are
    self-evident. The downside, however, is that corporate funding creates
    a culture of secrecy that can be chilling to free academic inquiry.
    Businesses frequently require scientists to keep ``proprietary
    information'' under wraps so that competitors can't horn in on their
    trade secrets.
        In 1994 and 1995, researchers led by David Blumenthal at the
    Massachusetts General Hospital surveyed more than 3,000 academic
    researchers involved in the life sciences and found that 64 percent of
    their respondents reported having some sort of financial relationship
    with industry. They also found that scientists with industry
    relationships were more likely to delay or withhold publication of
    their data. Their study, published by the Journal of the American
    Medical Association, found that during the three years prior to the
    survey, 20 percent of researchers reported delaying publication of
    their research results for more than six months. The reasons cited for
    delaying publication included the desire to patent applications from
    their discovery and a desire by some researchers to ``slow the
    dissemination of undesired results.'' The practice of withholding
    publication or refusing to share data with other scientists was
    particularly common among biotechnology researchers.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ David Blumenthal and others, ``Withholding Research Results in
    Academic Life Science,'' Journal of the American Medical Association,
    Vol. 277, no. 15 (April 16, 1997).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``It used to be that if you published you could ask about results,
    reagents--now you have these confidentiality agreements,'' said Nobel
    Prize-winning biochemist Paul Berg, a professor of biochemistry at
    Stanford University. ``Sometimes if you accept a grant from a company,
    you have to include a proviso that you won't distribute anything except
    with its okay. It has a negative impact on science.''
        The problem of secrecy in science is particularly troubling when it
    involves conflicts of interest between a company's marketing objectives
    and the public's right to know. When research results are not to a
    sponsor's liking, the company may use heavy-handed tactics to suppress
    them--even if doing so comes at the expense of public health and the
    common good.
        One such case came to light in 1997 regarding the work of Betty
    Dong, a researcher at the University of California. In the late 1980s,
    the Boots Pharmaceutical company took an interest in Dong's work after
    she published a limited study which suggested that Synthroid, a thyroid
    medication manufactured by Boots, was superior to drugs produced by the
    company's competitors. Boots offered $250,000 to finance a large-scale
    study that would confirm these preliminary findings. To the company's
    dismay, however, the larger study, which Dong completed in 1990,
    contradicted her earlier findings and showed that Synthroid was no more
    effective than the cheaper drugs made by Boots's competitors. What
    followed was a seven-year battle to discredit Dong and prevent
    publication of her work. The contract which Dong and her university had
    signed with the company gave it exclusive access to the prepublished
    results of the study as well as final approval over whether it would
    ever be published. The study sat on the shelf for five years while
    Boots waged a campaign to discredit Dong and the study, bombarding the
    chancellor and other university officials with allegations of unethical
    conduct and quibbles over the study's method, even though the company
    itself had previously approved the method. In 1994, Dong submitted a
    paper based on her work to the Journal of the American Medical
    Association. It was accepted for publication and already set in type
    when the company invoked its veto right, forcing her to withdraw
    it.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Drummond Rennie, ``Thyroid Storm'' (editorial), Journal of the
    American Medical Association, Vol. 277, no. 15 (April 16, 1997), p.
    1242.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 1995, Boots was purchased by Knoll Pharmaceutical, which
    continued to suppress Dong's conclusions. While she remained unable to
    publish her own results, Knoll published a reinterpretation of her data
    under the authorship of Gilbert Mayor, a doctor employed by the
    company. Mayor published his reanalysis of Dong's data without
    acknowledging her or her research associates, a practice that JAMA
    would later characterize as publishing ``results hijacked from those
    who did the work.'' \20\ After further legal battles and an expose of
    Knoll's heavy-handed tactics in the Wall Street Journal, Dong was
    finally allowed to publish her own version of the study in the Journal
    of the American Medical Association in 1997--nearly seven years after
    its completion. During those seven years, Boots/Knoll had used
    Synthroid's claims of superiority to dominate the $600-million-per-year
    synthetic thyroid market. The publication of her work in JAMA prompted
    a class-action lawsuit on the part of Synthroid users who had been
    effectively duped into paying an estimated $365 million per year more
    than they needed for their medication. Knoll settled the lawsuit out of
    court for $98 million--a fraction of the extra profits it had made
    during the years it spent suppressing Dong's study.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ Ibid.
        \21\ Shenk, pp. 11-12.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another attempt to suppress research occurred in 1995, when liver
    specialist Nancy Olivieri at the University of Toronto wanted to warn
    patients about the toxic side effects of a drug she was testing. The
    Canadian drug giant Apotex, which was sponsoring the study in hopes of
    marketing the drug, told her to keep quiet, citing a nondisclosure
    agreement that she had signed. When Olivieri alerted her patients
    anyway and published her concerns in the New England Journal of
    Medicine, Apotex threatened her with legal action and she was fired
    from her hospital, a recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars each
    year in research funding from Apotex.
        In 1997, David Kern, an occupational health expert at Brown
    University, discovered eight cases of a new, deadly lung disease among
    workers at a Microfibres, Inc, a manufacturer of finely-cut nylon flock
    based in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Microfibres tried to suppress Kern's
    finding, citing a confidentiality agreement that he had signed at the
    time of an educational visit to the company more than a year before the
    start of his research. When Kern spoke out anyway, administrators at
    the hospital and university where he worked (a recipient of charitable
    contributions from Microfibres) insisted that he withdraw a previously
    submitted scientific communique about the disease outbreak and that he
    cease providing medical care to his patients who worked at the company.
    Kern's program--the state's only occupational health center--was
    subsequently closed, and his job was eliminated.\22\ Even more
    disturbing was the response of many of his research colleagues. ``There
    were courageous folks who stood up for me, but most looked the other
    way,'' he said. ``I'm mightily discouraged by the failure of the
    community to do more.'' \23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Robert Lee Hotz, ``Secrecy Is Often the Price of Medical
    Research Funding,'' Los Angeles Times, May 18, 1999, p. A-1.
        \23\ Richard A. Knox, ``Disclosure Fight May Push Doctor Out of
    Occupational Health Field,'' Boston Globe, May 22, 1999, p. B5.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Beyond the problem of outright fraud and suppression, moreover,
    there is a larger and more pervasive problem: the systemwide bias that
    industry funding creates among researchers in commercially profitable
    fields. ``Virtually every academic in biotechnology is involved in
    exploiting it commercially,'' observed Orville Chapman of the
    University of California at Los Angeles. ``We've lost our credentials
    as unbiased on such subjects as cloning or the modification of living
    things, and we seem singularly reluctant to think it through.'' \24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ ``Special Report: What Happens when Universities Become
    Businesses?'' (Research Corporation Annual Report, 1997), p. 9.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A host of techniques exist for manipulating research protocols to
    produce studies whose conclusions fit their sponsor's predetermined
    interests. These techniques include adjusting the time of a study (so
    that toxic effects do not have time to emerge), subtle manipulations of
    target and control groups or dosage levels, and subjective
    interpretations of complex data. Often such methods stop short of
    outright fraud, but lead to predictable results. ``Usually associations
    that sponsor research have a fairly good idea what the outcome will be,
    or they won't fund it,'' says Joseph Hotchkiss of Cornell University.
    When researchers have examined the link between funding sources and
    research outcomes, they have found a striking pattern of
    correspondence:

              In 1994, researchers in Boston studied the
            relationship between funding and reported drug performance in
            published trials of anti-inflammatory drugs used in the
            treatment of arthritis. They reviewed 56 drug trials and found
            that in every single case, the manufacturer-associated drug was
            reported as being equal or superior in efficacy and toxicity to
            the comparison drug. ``These claims of superiority, especially
            in regard to side effects, are often not supported by the trial
            data,'' they added. ``These data raise concerns about selective
            publication or biased interpretation of results in
            manufacturer-associated trials.'' \25\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ P.A. Rochon, J.H. Gurwitz, R.W. Simms, P.R. Fortin, D.T.
    Felson, K.L. Minaker, et al, ``A Study of Manufacturer-Supported Trials
    of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs in the Treatment of
    Arthritis,'' Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 154, no. 2 (January
    24, 1994), pp. 157-163.

              In 1996, researchers Mildred K. Cho and Lisa A. Bero
            compared studies of new drug therapies and found that 98
            percent of the studies funded by a drug's maker reached
            favorable conclusions about its safety and efficacy, compared
            to 76 percent of studies funded by independent sources.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ Mildred K. Cho and Lisa A. Bero, ``The Quality of Drug Studies
    Published in Symposium Proceedings,'' Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol.
    124, no. 5 (3/1/96), pp. 485-489.

              In 1998, the New England Journal of Medicine
            published a study which examined the relationship between drug-
            industry funding and research conclusions about calcium-channel
            blockers, a class of drugs used to treat high blood pressure.
            There are safety concerns about the use of calcium-channel
            blockers because of research showing that they present a higher
            risk of heart attacks than other older and cheaper forms of
            blood pressure medication such as diuretics and beta-blockers.
            The NEJM study examined 70 articles on channel blockers and
            classified them into three categories: favorable, neutral and
            critical. It found that 96 percent of the authors of favorable
            articles had financial ties to manufacturers of calcium-channel
            blockers, compared with 60 percent of the neutral authors and
            37 percent of the critical authors. Only two of the 70 articles
            disclosed the authors' corporate ties.\27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ Henry Thomas Stelfox and others, ``Conflict of Interest in the
    Debate over Calcium-Channel Antagonists,'' New England Journal of
    Medicine, Vol. 338, No. 2 (January 8, 1998), pgs. 101-106.

              In October 1999, researchers at Northwestern
            University in Chicago studied the relationship between funding
            sources and conclusions reached by studies of new cancer drugs
            and found that studies sponsored by drug companies were nearly
            eight times less likely to report unfavorable conclusions than
            studies paid for by nonprofit organizations.\28\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ M. Friedberg, B. Saffran, T.J. Stinson, W. Nelson and C.L.
    Bennett, ``Evaluation of Conflict of Interest in Economic Analyses of
    New Drugs Used in Oncology,'' Journal of the American Medical
    Association, Vol. 282, no. 15 (October 20, 1999), pp. 1453-1457.

        Drug research is not the only field in which this pattern can be
    detected. In 1996, journalists Dan Fagin and Marianne Lavelle reviewed
    recent studies published in major scientific journals regarding the
    safety of four chemicals: the herbicides alachlor and atrazine,
    formaldehyde, and perchloroethylene, the carcinogenic solvent used for
    dry cleaning clothes. When nonindustry scientists did the studies, 60
    percent returned results unfavorable to the chemicals involved, whereas
    industry-funding scientists came back with favorable results 74 percent
    of the time. Fagin and Lavelle observed a particularly strong biasing
    influence with respect to agribusiness financing for research related
    to farm weed control. ``Weed scientists--a close-knit fraternity of
    researchers in industry, academia, and government--like to call
    themselves `nozzleheads' or `spray and pray guys,' '' they stated. ``As
    the nicknames suggest, their focus is usually much narrower than weeds.
    As many of its leading practitioners admit, weed science almost always
    means herbicide science, and herbicide science almost always means
    herbicide-justification science. Using their clout as the most
    important source of research dollars, chemical companies have
    skillfully wielded weed scientists to ward off the EPA, organic
    farmers, and others who want to wean American farmers away from their
    dependence on atrazine, alachlor, and other chemical weedkillers.''
    \29\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ Dan Fagin and Marianne Lavelle, Toxic Deception (Secaucus, NJ:
    Birch Lane Press, 1996), pp. 51-52.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Solutions

        Recognizing the problem of funding-driven bias, leading medical
    journals recently announced the adoption of a uniform policy that
    reserves the right to refuse to publish drug company-sponsored studies
    unless the researchers involved are guaranteed scientific independence.
    Hopefully, this announcement from the New England Journal of Medicine,
    the Lancet, the Annals of Internal Medicine and the Journal of the
    American Medical Association will serve as a signal for other journals
    to adopt similar policies.
        In addition, however, researchers and medical journals should adopt
    stricter standards of disclosure regarding funding itself. Some
    researchers bridle at this expectation. When asked who funds their
    research, they may argue that this question is irrelevant or that
    merely asking the question casts aspersions on their integrity.
    Individual integrity, however, is not the real issue. There is nothing
    inherently wrong with research sponsored by companies with a vested
    interest in its outcome. Nevertheless, neither researchers nor the
    sponsors of their research can be expected to be completely objective
    or to recognize their own bias if it exists. Funding does not
    necessarily create bias, but it selects bias and is a leading indicator
    of bias. For this reason alone, a researcher's funding and other
    possible financial conflicts of interest are important information
    which should be published as routinely as study methodologies and
    statistical confidence levels. Funding itself may not taint a
    researcher's integrity, but lack of candor about funding should be
    regarded as an ethical breach, and both researchers and scientific
    journals should work to foster a culture of expectations in which full
    and frank disclosure of such ties becomes the norm rather than the
    exception.
        Finally, it is important to maintain an ``information commons''--a
    space for research funded by nonprofit organizations, universities and
    governmental bodies. Research by these institutions may carry its own
    political agendas, but it is an important alternative and counterweight
    to proprietary, profit-driven research.
                         Biography for Sheldon Rampton
        Since 1994 Sheldon Rampton has been the Research Director for the
    Center for Media and Democracy, a non-profit organization based in
    Madison, Wisconsin. Individuals and other non-profit organizations fund
    the Center; it does not accept government, corporate or labor union
    grants. Rampton has authored numerous articles, commentaries and books
    on the subject of this testimony including Trust Us We're Experts: How
    Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future and Toxic
    Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations
    Industry. He was born and raised in Nevada, graduated from Princeton
    University, and works in Madison, Wisconsin.

        Chairman Miller. Thank you. I find that my southern
    upbringing and the difficulty of interrupting people for fear
    would seem like bad manners coming into conflict with my role
    as Chairman, and that upbringing was not even overcome by three
    years in law school. But if you could try to keep generally
    within the five minutes. We are not going to be real, real
    harsh about that time limit. It would be helpful to all of us.
        Dr. McCarthy.

    STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES J. MCCARTHY, ALEXANDER AGASSIZ PROFESSOR
     OF BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY; BOARD MEMBER,
                     UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

        Dr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
    thank you for holding this hearing and giving me the
    opportunity to testify today about efforts to distort the
    science of climate change.
        As you pointed out, I am the Alexander Agassiz Professor of
    Biological Oceanography at Harvard. I am the President-Elect of
    the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and I
    am a board member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. I also
    co-chaired Working Group II of the Inter-Governmental Panel and
    Climate Change, IPCC, for the Third Assessment, which reported
    out in 2001.
        I will begin today by describing the robust and consistent
    scientific understanding of climate change and the threat it
    poses. I will then summarize two recent reports of the Union of
    Concerned Scientists to show how the Bush Administration,
    political appointees, and a network of Exxon-funded, ExxonMobil
    funded organizations have sought to distort, manipulate, and
    suppress climate science so as to confuse the American public
    about the urgency of the global warming problem, and thus,
    forestall a strong policy response. I will close by providing
    recommendations to protect the integrity of science and the
    free flow of scientific information and to insure strong
    policies that will provide a healthy climate for our children.
        Over the past 25 years a broad consensus on the science of
    climate change has emerged. In June, 2005, the Academies of
    Science in each of the G8 nations plus India, China, and
    Brazil, issued a joint statement which said that, ``The
    scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently
    clear to justify nations taking prompt action.'' In the United
    States the American Geophysical Union, the American
    Meteorological Society, and the American Association for the
    Advancement of Science have all made similar statements about
    the urgency of the climate threat. And last month as Chairman
    Gordon pointed out, the IPCC released a report which concludes
    that the planet is unequivocally warming and that the warming
    we are seeing is due primarily to human activities such as the
    burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of forests. And as
    Chairman Gordon pointed out, the United States and over 100
    other nations endorsed this conclusion.
        How is it then that the non-scientific organizations and a
    few individuals are able to cast such doubt on the common
    statement of the world's leading scientific academies and the
    IPCC? A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists
    provides an explanation. Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air documents
    how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's
    disinformation tactics as well as some of the same
    organizations and personnel to cloud the scientific
    understanding of climate change and to delay action.
        ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998,
    and 2005, to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek
    to confuse the public on global warming science. Virtually all
    of these groups consist of an overlapping collection of
    individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific
    advisors to public and republic the works of a small group of
    climate change contrurians.
        Finally, the report reveals ExxonMobil's influence over
    Government policy, including successfully urging the Bush
    Administration to back away from the U.S. commitment to the
    Kyoto Protocol and successfully lobbying the White House to
    withdraw its support for the re-nomination of Robert Watson, an
    internationally respected U.S. scientist to a second term as
    Chairman of the IPCC. Political interference at the highest
    levels is harming federal science and is threatening the health
    and safety of Americans. Our recent report on interference in
    the work of federal climate scientists, atmosphere of pressure,
    found that some of our nation's highest-quality climate science
    is being suppressed. One hundred and fifty federal climate
    scientists, three out of five respondents personally
    experienced at least one incident of political interference
    over the past five years. That number should be zero. Tarek
    Maassarani will speak more about some of these findings in his
    statement.
        Chairman Miller and Chairman Gordon, I am sure I speak for
    all scientists when I thank you for the initiative that you
    have taken with your letter to 11 federal agencies regarding
    their science media practices.
        Recommendations. Congress should take action to prevent the
    worst effects of global warming, ignore the disinformation
    campaign funded by ExxonMobil, and take steps to protect
    federal climate scientists from political interference. There
    are several concrete steps that need to restore scientific
    integrity.
        I congratulate the House of Representatives for the passage
    of legislation extending whistleblower protections to
    scientists, and we hope that the Senate will follow your lead.
    The constitutional right of federal scientists to speak freely
    must be guaranteed. Scientists should not be subject to undue
    restrictions on media contacts, and finally, all Americans must
    be guaranteed access to the scientific basis for the agency
    decisions that affect their health and safety and are paid for
    with their tax dollars.
        In conclusion, Congress needs to recognize ExxonMobil's
    disinformation campaign for what it is. I urge Members of
    Congress to draw the scientific information needed to formulate
    wise climate policy from bona fide scientific organizations and
    member scientists who publish in the scientific literature and
    to assiduously avoid being influenced by the protestations of
    small but vocal advocacy groups funded by ExxonMobil for the
    express purpose of casting doubt on a robust body of climate
    science.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. McCarthy follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of James J. McCarthy
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for holding
    this hearing, and for giving me the opportunity to testify today about
    efforts to distort the science of climate change. My name is James
    McCarthy, and I am Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological
    Oceanography at Harvard University. From 1986 to 1993, I served as
    Chair of the International Committee that establishes research
    priorities and oversees implementation of the International Geosphere--
    Biosphere Program. From 1997 to 2001, I co-chaired Working Group II of
    the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had
    responsibilities for assessing impacts of and vulnerabilities to global
    climate change for the Third IPCC Assessment. I am President-Elect of
    the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and member of
    the Board of Union of Concerned Scientists.
        It is now clear that for a number of years, both Bush
    Administration political appointees and a network of organizations
    funded by the world's largest private energy company, ExxonMobil, have
    sought to distort, manipulate and suppress climate science, so as to
    confuse the American public about the reality and urgency of the global
    warming problem, and thus forestall a strong policy response.
        Unfortunately, these efforts have misled many individuals,
    including elected officials, to believe that the human influences on
    climate change are either negligible or of little consequence. The
    science, however, leaves no doubt that human induced climate change is
    of enormous potential consequence, and clearly one of the most urgent
    issues of our times. It is also increasingly clear that we only have a
    narrow window of time--a decade or less--within which to initiate
    serious action if we are to avoid the highly negative impacts of global
    warming that are otherwise projected for this century.
        In my testimony, I will begin by describing the process by which
    scientists have reached a robust and consistent position on our
    understanding of climate change and the threats it poses. I will then
    summarize two recent reports by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The
    first, ``Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air,'' details how ExxonMobil
    manufactured uncertainty on climate change, and the second,
    ``Atmosphere of Pressure,'' describes how federal climate science has
    been systematically manipulated and suppressed. I will close by
    providing recommendations for Congress, the administration and
    ExxonMobil to protect the integrity of science and the free flow of
    scientific information and to ensure strong public policies that will
    provide a healthy climate for our children and grandchildren.

    The Role of Science in Addressing Global Warming

        First, let me outline where the scientific understanding of climate
    change and the threat it poses now stands. Science is an evolving body
    of knowledge, which is always open to challenge and new ideas. But
    there is a process by which this occurs, one that gives these
    challenges and new ideas credibility and legitimacy. This is through
    publication in peer reviewed scientific journals.
        Novel findings do not always readily attain widespread acceptance
    in the scientific community. For example, the most important
    contribution to Earth sciences in the last four decades may be the
    discovery of seafloor-spreading and plate tectonics. And yet, some
    distinguished Earth scientists went to their graves unconvinced of the
    evidence.
        Sometimes new findings, seemingly credible in the initial
    publication, are eventually proven wrong. The process of science is to
    continue to question and challenge both new and well-established
    findings. No scientist would ever discourage this skepticism.
        The understanding of how changes in the atmospheric concentrations
    of greenhouse gases can affect Earth's temperature dates to the late
    1800's. But due to the complex dynamics of climate, it took time for
    scientists to understand the linkages between chemical cycles involving
    land, ocean and atmospheric processes, and to ascertain clear trends in
    climate and in greenhouse gas concentrations. Was the Earth warming or
    cooling? Could the amount of heat-trapping gases produced by humans
    really be large enough to affect change? These and many other sensible
    questions were a common motivator of scientific studies in the last
    century. It was not until the latter half of the 20th century that key
    pieces of the relationship between increases in concentrations of heat-
    trapping gases and climate came into clear view.
        For the past 25 years, many national academies of science have
    reviewed the body of climate science and have spoken consistently
    regarding the observed changes in Earth's climate and the evidence that
    human activities are the primary source of heat-trapping emissions
    responsible for global warming.
        In June, 2005, the academies of science in each of the G-8 nations
    plus India, China, and Brazil issued a joint statement summarizing the
    science relating to anthropogenic climate change, which declared:

             ``. . .there is now strong evidence that significant global
            warming is occurring. . . It is likely that most of the warming
            in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. . .
            This warming has already led to changes in Earth's climate. . .
            The scientific understanding of climate change is now
            sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It
            is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that
            they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term
            reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.''

        Within the Unites States most climate scientists are members of one
    or more of the following professional organizations which publish
    scientific journals and hold regular meetings for scientists to present
    their latest findings: the American Geophysical Union (41,000 members),
    the American Meteorology Society (AMS) (11,000 members), and the
    American Association for the Advancement of Science (120,000 individual
    and institutional members). These preeminent scientific societies have
    all made similar statements about recent climate change. Here, for
    example is the statement of the AMS:

             ``Despite uncertainties, there is adequate evidence from
            observations and interpretations of climate simulations to
            conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are
            warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this
            change; and that further climate change will continue to have
            important impacts on human societies, on economies, on
            ecosystems and on wildlife through the 21st century and
            beyond.''

        And, just last month, the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on
    Climate Change (IPCC) released a report which concludes that the planet
    is unequivocally warming--their word, unequivocal--and that the warming
    we're seeing is due primarily to the coal, oil and natural gas we burn
    to power our homes, businesses and transportation.
        Despite this strong scientific understanding, media coverage and
    political debate on global warming science often give undue credence to
    the views of little known organizations and statements by individuals
    purporting to be experts on climate science.
        A medical analogy comes to mind. Official position statements of
    the National Academies Institute of Medicine, the American Medical
    Association, the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer
    Society state that medical evidence strongly links cigarette smoking to
    lung and heart disease. Would any of us who are not experts in this
    field of medical science feel qualified challenging the views of these
    august bodies?
        How is it then, that non-scientific organizations and a few
    individuals are able to cast doubt on the common statement of the
    world's leading scientific academies, the IPCC, and on more than a
    century of scientific discovery regarding climate science? A recent
    report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) provides an
    explanation.

    ExxonMobil's Disinformation Campaign\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \1\ References available in the full report, available at
    www.ucsusa.org/news/press-release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-
    tobacco.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In January 2007, UCS released ``Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: How
    ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on
    Climate Science.'' The report documents how ExxonMobil, the world's
    largest energy company, has for years underwritten a sophisticated
    disinformation campaign whose aim has been to deceive the public and
    policy-makers about the reality of global warming. The campaign bears
    striking similarities to the tobacco industry's decades-long effort to
    mislead the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to
    lung cancer and heart disease. In fact, some of the same organizations
    and individuals involved in the tobacco industry effort are also part
    of the ExxonMobil's disinformation campaign.
        Like the tobacco industry in previous decades, ExxonMobil has:

              Raised doubts about even the most indisputable
            scientific evidence;

              Funded an array of front organizations to create the
            appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal
            climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed
            scientific findings;

              Attempted to portray its opposition to action as a
            positive quest for ``sound science'' rather than business self-
            interest; and,

              Used its access to the Bush Administration to block
            federal policies and shape government communications on global
            warming.

    ExxonMobil Contributions to Climate Contrarian Groups
        Specifically, the UCS report shows that between 1998 and 2005,
    ExxonMobil funneled close to $16 million to a network of 43 ideological
    and advocacy groups that seek to manufacture uncertainty about the
    strong scientific consensus on global warming. These groups promote
    spokespeople who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings or
    cherry-pick facts in an attempt to mislead the media and public into
    thinking there is vigorous debate in the mainstream scientific
    community about climate change. Among the ExxonMobil-funded groups are
    established conservative and anti-regulation think tanks and
    organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute. There are also
    a myriad of smaller, lesser known groups, including the Heartland
    Institute ($560,000), the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public
    Policy ($763,500), and Frontiers of Freedom ($1,000,200).
        There are two disturbing themes about the groups funded by
    ExxonMobil. First, virtually all of the 43 organizations publish and
    publicize the work of a nearly identical small group of spokespeople
    who work to misrepresent climate science and confuse the public's
    understanding of global warming. Most of these organizations also
    include these same individuals as board members or scientific advisers.
    Second, ExxonMobil has often been the major underwriter of these
    groups' climate change-related activities.
        There are many examples of what I've described in the UCS report.
    Solid state physicist Frederick Seitz, for instance, is the emeritus
    chair of the ExxonMobil funded Marshall Institute and is also
    affiliated with at least four other groups receiving funding from
    ExxonMobil. Patrick Michaels and Fred Singer, both prolific climate
    change skeptics, each have ties to no fewer than 11 organizations
    funded by ExxonMobil.
        In terms of the organizations themselves, one of the most striking
    features to emerge from the data is the fact that ExxonMobil is often
    the major underwriter of these groups' climate change-related efforts.
    A good example is a Washington, DC.-based group called the Committee
    for a Constructive Tomorrow. This organization has, since 1998,
    received nearly a half a million dollars from ExxonMobil. The company's
    2004 grant to this organization made up approximately a quarter of the
    group's total expenses for that year.
        Another notable example is the Competitive Enterprise Institute
    which has, to date, received more than $2 million in ExxonMobil
    funding.
        All these figures and many more like them are documented in the
    report and its appendices. Part of UCS's goal was to provide a
    comprehensive reference of people, organizations, and funding data on
    this topic, and with close to 300 footnotes, the report provides plenty
    of source material for people to look into the story more deeply for
    themselves.

    ExxonMobil Links to Big Tobacco
        In addition to providing this information, though, the report also
    details links in strategy and personnel between ExxonMobil's efforts
    and those of the tobacco industry. It includes the text, for instance,
    of a seminal 1998 memo that ExxonMobil helped draft as part of a small
    group called the Global Climate Science Team that set much of the
    company's strategy in motion. As the report shows, this internal memo
    didn't just mimic the tobacco industry's strategy, it even drew upon
    key personnel who had implemented it.
        For instance, Randy Randol, ExxonMobil's senior environmental
    lobbyist at the time, was a member of this Global Climate Science Team.
    Notably, so was Steve Milloy, who headed a tobacco front organization.
    As we now know from internal documents made public by court order, the
    tobacco firm Philip Morris actually hired a PR firm to create this
    group--called the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition--in 1993 to
    mislead the public about the dangers of second-hand smoke. In an effort
    to disguise its identity as a tobacco industry front group, TASSC also
    fostered support for a host of other anti-regulatory efforts on issues
    ranging from asbestos to radon.
        Milloy is one of several veterans of the tobacco industry's
    disinformation campaign who this report shows are involved in
    ExxonMobil's similar, ongoing efforts on global warming. As recently as
    2004, ExxonMobil has continued to fund Milloy's efforts. He currently
    runs two organizations out of his Maryland home-the resuscitated
    Advancement of Sound Science Center and something called the Free
    Enterprise Education Institute. ExxonMobil's close connection with some
    of the very same personnel who helped engineer the tobacco industry's
    blatant and shameful disinformation campaign speaks for itself.

    ExxonMobil's Political Influence
        The UCS report shows that ExxonMobil's influence over government
    policy may surpass that of the tobacco industry it emulates. The report
    documents that during the 2000-2006 election cycles, ExxonMobil's PAC
    and individuals affiliated with the company gave more than $4 million
    to federal candidates and parties. Shortly after President Bush took
    office, ExxonMobil began to wield its influence. In 2001, ExxonMobil
    participated in Vice President Cheney's ``Energy Task Force,'' which
    recommended a continued reliance on fossil fuels.
        ExxonMobil also successfully urged the Bush Administration to back
    away from the U.S. Commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. Notes from a 2001
    talk by State Department official Paula Dobriansky confirm the role
    ExxonMobil played in persuading the Administration to abandon the
    international agreement. Another 2001 memo from ExxonMobil urged the
    Administration to hire Harlan Watson, a vocal opponent of climate
    action, as the lead negotiator for the U.S. on international climate
    policy. Since then H. Watson has steadfastly opposed any U.S.
    engagement in the Kyoto process.
        Other documents reveal that in February 2001, following the release
    of an authoritative report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change (IPCC), ExxonMobil successfully lobbied the White House to
    withdraw its support for renomination of Robert Watson to a second term
    as Chairman of the IPCC. R. Watson, an internationally respected
    scientist, has served as the Director of the Science Division at NASA
    and was at the time a chief scientist at the World Bank.
        In one of the most striking examples of ExxonMobil's influence, the
    administration hired Philip Cooney to serve as the Chief of Staff in
    the White House Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) from 2001-2005.
    Before joining the Administration, Cooney had spent a decade as a
    lawyer for the American Petroleum institute, the oil industry lobby
    that worked with ExxonMobil to develop its disinformation campaign. In
    that capacity, Cooney sought to prevent the U.S. from entering into any
    kind of international agreement or enacting any domestic legislation
    that might lead to mandatory limits on global warming emissions.
        Cooney, a lawyer with an undergraduate degree in economics, had no
    scientific credentials that might qualify him to rewrite the findings
    of top government scientists. Nonetheless, during his tenure at CEQ, he
    spent a significant amount of time censoring and distorting government
    reports so as to exaggerate scientific uncertainty about global
    warming. One particularly damning incident involved Cooney's efforts to
    sabotage the Administration's own May 2002 ``U.S. Climate Action
    Report,'' which concluded that climate change posed a significant risk
    and was caused by human-made emissions. The report drew on the findings
    of the ``U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of
    Climate Variability and Change,'' an earlier government report that
    predated the Bush Administration.
        E-mail correspondence obtained through a Freedom of Information Act
    request shows that Cooney contacted Myron Ebell at the ExxonMobil-
    funded Competitive Enterprise Institute for help in undermining the
    Administration's own report. Ebell advised the Administration to
    distance itself from the report. Shortly after, President Bush did
    exactly that, denigrating the report as having been ``put out by the
    bureaucracy.'' CEI then filed the second of two lawsuits calling for
    the Bush Administration to withdraw the National Assessment, on which
    the report in question was based.
        Cooney's inappropriate activities came to light when Rick Piltz, a
    whistle-blowing researcher at the U.S. Government's interagency Climate
    Change Science Program, resigned in protest over Cooney's censorship
    practices and other Bush Administration abuses of climate science. Two
    days after the New York Times first reported on Piltz's revelations,
    Cooney resigned. It was not surprising when, one week after he left the
    White house, Cooney accepted a high-ranking public relations position
    at ExxonMobil.

    The Bottom Line on ExxonMobil
        In an effort reminiscent of the tobacco industry, ExxonMobil has
    helped create an echo chamber that serves to amplify the views of a
    carefully selected group of spokespeople whose work has been largely
    discredited by the scientific community. Hopefully, as the connections
    documented in this report become known, lawmakers, media, and the
    public will become more attuned to the relationships that many of the
    most vocal critics of climate change science and their organizations
    have to a corporation that has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the
    science and respond to the concerns so succinctly summarized in the
    joint statement of the 11 Academies and the recent IPCC report.

    Protecting Federal Climate Scientists from Political Interference

        Federal climate science research is at the forefront of assessing
    fundamental causes of global warming and the future dangers it could
    pose to our nation and the world. Such research is of tremendous value
    to many Americans planning for these risks, including coastal
    communities designing infrastructure for protecting against storm
    surges; civil authorities planning for heat waves; power companies
    preparing for higher peak energy demands; forest managers planning
    wildfire management programs; farmers adjusting to changing
    precipitation patterns; and policy-makers evaluating energy
    legislation. Therefore, it is crucial that the best available science
    on climate change be disseminated to the public, through government
    websites, reports, and press releases. In recent years, however, this
    science has been increasingly tailored to reflect political goals
    rather than scientific fact.
        Out of concern that inappropriate political interference and media
    favoritism are compromising federal climate science, the Union of
    Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government Accountability Project
    (GAP) undertook independent investigations of federal climate science.
    UCS mailed a questionnaire to more than 1,600 climate scientists at
    seven federal agencies to gauge the extent to which politics was
    playing a role in scientists' research. Surveys were also sent to
    scientists at the independent (non-federal) National Center for
    Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to serve as a comparison with the
    experience of federal scientists. About 19 percent of all scientists
    responded (279 from federal agencies and 29 from NCAR). At the same
    time, GAP conducted 40 in-depth interviews with federal climate
    scientists and other officials and analyzed thousands of pages of
    government documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act
    (FOIA) and inside sources, regarding agency media policies and
    congressional communications.
        These two complementary investigations arrived at similar
    conclusions regarding the state of federal climate research and the
    need for strong policies to protect the integrity of science and the
    free flow of scientific information. Together, they formed the basis
    for ``Atmosphere of Pressure,'' a joint report by the Union of
    Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project.

    Findings of the Report: ``Atmosphere of Pressure''
        Political Interference with Climate Science: The Federal Government
    needs accurate scientific information to craft effective policies.
    Political interference with the work of federal scientists threatens
    the quality and integrity of these policies. As such, no scientist
    should ever encounter any of the various types of political
    interference described in our survey questions. Yet unacceptably large
    numbers of federal climate scientists personally experienced instances
    of interference over the past five years:

              57 scientists (21 percent of all respondents to the
            question) personally experienced pressure to eliminate the
            words ``climate change,'' ``global warming,'' or other similar
            terms from a variety of communications.

              41 scientists (15 percent) personally experienced
            changes or edits during review that changed the meaning of
            scientific findings.

              47 scientists (18 percent) personally experienced
            statements by officials at their agencies that misrepresented
            scientists' findings.

              60 scientists (22 percent) personally experienced the
            disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other
            science-based materials relating to climate.

              97 scientists (36 percent) personally experienced new
            or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-
            related work.

              17 scientists (six percent) personally experienced
            situations in which scientists have actively objected to,
            resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of
            pressure to change scientific findings.

              In all, 150 scientists (58 percent) said they had
            personally experienced at least one incident of some form of
            interference within the past five years, for a total of at
            least 435 incidents of political interference.

        The more frequently a climate scientist's work touches on sensitive
    or controversial issues, the more interference he or she reported. More
    than three-quarters (78 percent) of those survey respondents who self-
    reported that their research ``always'' or ``frequently'' touches on
    issues that could be considered sensitive or controversial also
    reported they had personally experienced at least one incident of
    inappropriate interference. More than one-quarter (27 percent) of this
    same group had experienced six or more such incidents in the past five
    years.
        In contrast to this evidence of widespread interference in climate
    science at federal agencies, scientists at the independent National
    Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), who are not federal employees,
    reported far fewer instances of interference. Only 22 percent of all
    NCAR respondents had personally experienced such incidents over the
    past five years. Of course, this is still unacceptable; no scientist
    should be subjected to such political interference.
        Barriers to Communication: Federal scientists have a constitutional
    right to speak about their scientific research, and the American public
    has a right to be informed of the findings of taxpayer-supported
    research. Restrictions on scientists who report findings contrary to an
    administration's preferred policies undermine these basic rights. These
    practices also contribute to a general misunderstanding of the findings
    of climate science and degrade our government's ability to make
    effective policies on topics ranging from public health to agriculture
    to disaster preparation.
        The investigation uncovered numerous examples of public affairs
    officers at federal agencies taking a highly active role in regulating
    communications between agency scientists and the media--in effect
    serving as gatekeepers for scientific information.
        Among the examples taken from interviews and FOIA documents:

              One agency scientist, whose research illustrates a
            possible connection between hurricanes and global warming, was
            repeatedly barred from speaking to the media. Press inquiries
            on the subject were routed to another scientist whose views
            more closely matched official administration policy.

              Government scientists routinely encounter difficulty
            in obtaining approval for official press releases that
            highlight research into the causes and consequences of global
            warming.

              Media policies at federal agencies went beyond
            notifying public affairs officers of upcoming interviews or
            recapping the content of past interviews. In some cases
            requests to speak with the media were only granted under the
            condition that a public affairs officer be physically present
            at the interview. This practice of having their statements
            monitored may have made some scientists feel less comfortable
            speaking freely.

              Both scientists and journalists report that
            restrictive media policies and practices have had the effect of
            slowing down the process by which interview requests are
            approved. As a result, the number of contacts between
            government scientists and the news media has been greatly
            reduced.

        Highly publicized incidents of interference have led at least one
    agency to implement reforms; in February 2006, NASA adopted a
    scientific openness policy that affirms the right of open scientific
    communication. Perhaps as a result, 61 percent of NASA survey
    respondents said recent policies affirming scientific openness at their
    agency have improved the environment for climate research. While
    imperfect, the new NASA media policy stands as a model for the type of
    action other federal agencies should take in reforming their media
    policies.
        The investigation also highlighted problems with the process by
    which scientific findings are communicated to policy-makers in
    Congress. One example, taken from internal documents provided to GAP by
    agency staff, shows edits to official questions for the record by
    political appointees, which change the meaning of the scientific
    findings being presented.
        Inadequate Funding: When adjusted for inflation, funding for
    federal climate science research has declined since the mid-1990s. A
    majority of survey respondents disagreed that the government has done a
    good job funding climate science, and a large number of scientists
    warned that inadequate levels of funding are harming the capacity of
    researchers to make progress in understanding the causes and effects of
    climate change. Budget cuts that have forced the cancellation of
    crucial Earth observation satellite programs were of particular concern
    to respondents.
        Poor Morale: Morale among federal climate scientists is generally
    poor. The UCS survey results suggest a correlation between the
    deterioration in morale and the politicized environment surrounding
    federal climate science in the present administration. One primary
    danger of low morale and decreased funding is that federal agencies may
    have more difficulty attracting and keeping the best scientists.
        A large number of respondents reported decreasing job satisfaction
    and a worsening environment for climate science in federal agencies:

              Two-thirds of respondents said that today's
            environment for Federal Government climate research is worse
            compared with five years ago (67 percent) and 10 years ago (64
            percent). Among scientists at NASA, these numbers were higher
            (79 percent and 77 percent, respectively).

              45 percent said that their personal job satisfaction
            has decreased over the past few years. At NASA, three in five
            (61 percent) reported decreased job satisfaction.

              36 percent of respondents from NASA, and 22 percent
            of all respondents, reported that morale in their office was
            ``poor'' or ``extremely poor.'' Among NCAR respondents, only
            seven percent reported such low levels of morale.

    Recommendations

        Congress should take action to prevent the worst effects of global
    warming, ignore the disinformation campaign funded by ExxonMobil, and
    take steps to protect federal climate scientists from political
    interference. Let me address each of these areas.
    Congressional Action on Global Warming
        The true signal that ExxonMobil's disinformation campaign has been
    defeated and federal climate scientists have regained a real voice will
    come when Congress passes policies that meaningfully address the threat
    of global warming. Most importantly, Congress should pass science based
    legislation that gradually reduces global warming emissions to 80
    percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In addition, Congress should enact
    policies that spur the development of solution technologies and make
    compliance with the economy-wide reductions more affordable. These
    should include:

              Increased fuel economy standards for passenger
            vehicles;

              A Renewable Electricity Standard requiring utilities
            to obtain 20 percent of electricity from renewable energy
            sources by 2020;

              A shift in government energy support and incentives
            away from conventional coal, oil, and gas toward clean,
            renewable energy sources; and,

              Integration of low carbon fuels into the supply chain
            by ensuring that more gas stations sell biofuels such as E85
            and flexible fuel vehicles comprise a greater percentage of the
            vehicle fleet.

    Ending ExxonMobil's Disinformation Campaign
        The UCS ``Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air'' report, which was covered
    in more than 300 media outlets, came on the heels of other criticism of
    ExxonMobil's disinformation campaign. In September 2006, the Royal
    Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, sent a letter to
    ExxonMobil urging the company to stop funding the dozens of groups
    spreading disinformation on global warming and also strongly criticized
    the company's ``inaccurate and misleading'' public statements on global
    warming. On October 27, 2006, Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and John D.
    Rockefeller (D-WV) sent a letter to ExxonMobil urging the company to
    stop funding climate contrarian groups. All three of these documents
    have led to public outrage about the company's cynical campaign to
    delay climate action.
        In response to public pressure, ExxonMobil recently launched a
    public relations campaign aimed at softening its image as a climate
    skeptic. Although the company recently acknowledges the global warming
    threat, and has announced that it has cut off funding for some of the
    groups involved in the disinformation campaign, including the
    Competitive Enterprise Institute, it has not yet pledged a complete
    halt to its bankrolling of the scores of skeptic groups that
    disseminate misleading information on global warming. In a letter
    responding to Senators Snowe and Rockfeller, ExxonMobil claimed to have
    no control over the activities of the groups it supports. If that's
    true, ExxonMobil can certainly choose to stop funding any group that
    disseminates misinformation and establish clear standards for groups
    that receive funding in the future.
        Even if ExxonMobil ceases to fund its disinformation campaign, much
    of what it funded in the past will continue to have influence, and to
    the degree it does, our nation will take longer to enact the needed
    policies described above. Such delay would be costly in harm done to
    natural and human socioeconomic systems that are sensitive to the
    negative impacts of business-as-usual projections for future climate.
    Therefore, I urge Members of Congress to draw the scientific
    information needed to formulate wise policy responses to impending
    climate change from bona fide scientific organizations and member
    scientists who publish in the scientific literature, and to assiduously
    avoid being influenced by the protestations of small but vocal groups
    and individuals funded by ExxonMobil and other corporations and special
    interests for the express purpose of casting doubt on a robust body of
    climate science.
    Protecting Federal Climate Scientists
        The UCS-GAP ``Atmosphere of Pressure'' report brought to light
    numerous ways in which U.S. federal climate science has been filtered,
    suppressed, and manipulated in the last five years. Until this
    political interference ends, the United States will not be able to
    fully protect Americans and the world from the dangers of a warming
    planet. Creating systems to ensure long-term independent and accessible
    science will require the energies of the entire Federal Government. T
    recommend the following reforms and actions:

              Congress must act to specifically protect the rights
            of federal scientists to conduct their work and communicate
            their findings without interference and protect scientists who
            speak out when they see interference or suppression of science.

              The Federal Government must respect the
            constitutional right of scientists to speak about any subject,
            including policy-related matters and those outside their area
            of expertise, so long as the scientists make it clear that they
            do so in their private capacity, and such communications do not
            unreasonably take from agency time and resources. Scientists
            should also be made aware of these rights and ensure they are
            exercised at their agencies.

              Ultimate decisions about the communication of federal
            scientific information should lie with scientists themselves.
            While non-scientists may be helpful with various aspects of
            writing and communication, scientists must have a ``right of
            last review'' on agency communications related to their
            scientific research to ensure scientific accuracy has been
            maintained.

              Pre-approval of media interviews with federal
            scientists by public affairs officials should be eliminated.
            Scientists should not be subject to restrictions on media
            contacts beyond a policy of informing public affairs officials
            in advance of an interview and summarizing the interaction for
            them afterwards. Coordinating media requests with the public
            affairs office is reasonable, but the practice of public
            affairs officers being present at an interview, either
            physically or by phone, can have a chilling effect on the free
            flow of scientific information and should not serve as a
            prerequisite for the approval of an interview. The UCS report
            provides a Model Media Policy that can be used as an example
            for federal agencies who wish to reform their policies and
            practices regarding scientific freedom and openness.

              Federal agencies should clearly support the free
            exchange of scientific information in all venues. They should
            investigate and correct inappropriate policies, practices, and
            incidents that threaten scientific integrity, determine how and
            why problems have occurred, and make the necessary reforms to
            prevent further incidents.

              Funding decisions regarding climate change programs
            should be guided by scientific criteria, and must take into
            account the importance of long-term, continual climate
            observation programs and models. All branches of the government
            must have access to independent scientific advice.

    Conclusion

        The actions of ExxonMobil-funded groups and federal political
    appointees to distort, manipulate, and suppress climate science have
    helped postpone meaningful U.S. action to protect future generations
    from the worst consequences of global warming. The Federal Government
    must commit to ensuring basic scientific freedoms and supporting
    scientists in their endeavors to bring scientific results to the policy
    arena, scientific fora, and the American people.

    Attachment B

           Selected Excerpts from UCS Climate Survey Essay Responses

        The 40-question survey mailed by UCS to over 1,600 federal climate
    scientists featured one essay question that allowed scientists to
    provide a written narrative, and extra space for scientists to leave
    additional comments. The following are excerpts from the essays
    provided, divided into five topic areas: political interference in
    climate science, scientific findings misrepresented, barriers to
    communication, funding, and climate scientist are disheartened.

    ``The integrity of the U.S. Federal Government climate science could
    best be improved by. . .''

    I. Political Interference with Climate Science
        Large numbers of federal climate scientists reported various types
    of interference, both subtle and explicit:

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

             ``Remembering that the civil service scientists and engineers
            can and should be an unbiased reservoir of insights into
            different questions with impacts across international economic
            and cultural dividing lines. Politicizing and degrading the
            integrity for which we are internationally known and respected
            is a disservice to our country and a danger to the world. If we
            can't be trusted, to give insights on global change and funded
            to do so, who in the world will do it?''

             ``Keep politics out of science.''

             ``Administration needs to act on the best information, not try
            to force the information to fit their desired action.''

             National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

             ``Removing the current atmosphere where scientists who report
            findings truthfully may face consequences if they contradict
            administration policies.''

             ``I have never seen or expected this degree of political
            interference in scientific research. It's appalling and
            unbelievable that it happens in the U.S.''

             ``Eliminating political pressure from influencing science
            findings.''

             ``De-politicizing the science, especially at the highest
            administrative levels of agencies. Protect the integrity of
            scientists by letting them speak, and by respecting that.''

             ``Remove political pressures that try to make agencies support
            the administration's agenda. Allow scientific agencies to
            remain nonpolitical. Allow scientific results to be used as
            scientific facts instead of political or policy statements.''

             ``Policy of zero interference in the scientific process.''

             Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

             ``The perception that. . .we (climate scientists) might find
            and write [something that] might be considered controversial is
            a strong one that comes down from management. It's not clear
            that there's a real reason for it or what the consequences
            would be. This perception should be actively discouraged from
            the highest levels!''

             ``Keeping politics out of the scientific process. I believe
            the line has been crossed between science informing public
            policy and policy manipulating the science (and trying to
            influence its outcome). I have personally experienced this
            manipulation in the area of communicating the science many
            times.''

             Department of Energy

             ``Allowing scientists to work completely independently of
            current administrative views on the subject.''

             ``No oversight of scientific quality by politicians. It should
            be left to peer review and presentations of results in
            scientific meetings.''

             U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

             ``A scientific report will now undergo three `policy' reviews
            and two `peer' reviews prior to further peer-review journal
            reviews. This will not only slow the reporting of results, but
            the chances are that significant watering-down of results will
            occur during the three `policy' reviews by non-specialists.''

             National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

             ``Keeping political employee appointments completely
            independent of the scientific research, scientific publication,
            and scientific communications processes.''

    II. Scientific Findings Misrepresented

        Federal climate scientists reported that their research findings
    have been changed by non-scientists in ways that compromise accuracy:

             National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

             ``Not censoring scientific results.''

             ``U.S. Federal Government climate science does not lack
            integrity. Science assessments, summaries, policy papers
            sometimes do lack integrity. The best way to improve them would
            be to ensure they are written by qualified scientists, not by
            political hacks.''

             Department of Agriculture (USDA)

             ``It's not the climate science per se, but how it is spun and
            censored by officials.''

             ``Hands off by policy/communications and non-scientific staff
            on scientific reports. These reports should be subject to
            scientific and independent peer review.''

             Department of Energy

             ``Not having political appointees who have no formal training
            in climate science looking over our shoulders. There should be
            some minimum bar before they are appointed. Policy should be
            based on sound science; results of science should not be
            diluted on suited/adjusted to justify policy. This particular
            Administration has gone beyond reasonable boundaries, on this
            issue.''

             National Center for Atmospheric Research

             ``The unedited presentation of findings to government panels
            and to the public. It appears that funding organizations are
            shifting priorities away from climate studies to other programs
            deemed more important by the current administration.''

    III. Barriers to Communication

        Agency scientists are not free to communicate their research
    findings to the media or the public:

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

             ``As of March 2006, there was a marked change in NASA, and I
            have spoken out freely on climate change, including a NASA-
            approved press release. I believe scientists at other agencies
            (e.g., NOAA) still have restrictions.''

             ``Allow direct and open communication between scientists and
            the public without prior permission, clearance, chaperones,
            handlers, etc.''

             ``Recently a Bush appointee to the position of Public
            Information Officer attempted to muzzle Jim Hansen, Director of
            GISS. . .the NASA Administrator made it clear that such
            political meddling would not be tolerated. This was excellent
            leadership at the top and set the tone for any lower echelons
            that may not otherwise have been this strong. Michael Griffin
            is a great improvement over his recent precedents.''

             ``Reduced public affairs interference, review, delay,
            oversight.''

             ``Not having White House liaisons in science related PR
            offices.''

             National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

             ``Scientists should be free to communicate with the media,
            rather than having media contacts filtered by ``Public
            Affairs'' officers. This should be official policy, not a
            ``wink and nod'' policy.''

             ``Removing all apparatchiks monitoring the controlling how
            scientists communicate to the public.''

             ``Allowing us to interact openly with the public.''

             ``Less restrictions on publications and data output, more
            universal support, less restrictive travel/visitor policies
            (our honored guests are treated like criminals to even get in
            the building).''

             Department of Energy

             ``Not having political appointees tinker with science that is
            best left to the experts. Particularly at NOAA where the
            Administration has gagged free exchange of results.''

             ``More open discussion of issues, honest assessment of data
            and results. The public does not know who to believe. Separate
            the ``grey'' results/literature from solid peer reviewed
            results and provide ``what is known and not known,'' not
            opinions.''

             Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

             ``Allowing scientists to communicate directly to the public
            and other scientists about critical significance of climate
            change. In fact, informing the public regarding the truth of
            this issue must be encouraged and rewarded.''

             National Center for Atmospheric Research

             ``From what I've heard, NCAR is rare among research institutes
            in that we are free to communicate our findings. This policy
            needs to apply to all research institutes and all scientists
            should be encouraged to communicate their results to the
            public.''

             ``At one point, I specifically asked my division director if
            there were any censorship policies at NCAR. He emphatically
            stated that there were none and that if we were ever pressured
            that we should contact him immediately and he would raise hell
            to eliminate the pressure.''

    IV. Inadequate Funding

        Scientists reported that inadequate funding affects their ability
    to do the research that is necessary and pertinent.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

             ``I believe that climate research at NASA is being undermined
            by the current administration. This is accomplished not through
            direct threats of intimidation, but through lack of funding.
            Several years ago the funding focus [at NASA] was switched from
            Earth Science to solar system exploration (Moon and Mars). I
            believe this was done not for solar system exploration, but
            rather to curtail climate research. The emphasis needs to be
            switched back to Earth Science.''

             ``Problems with climate research in the Federal Government
            mainly have to do with funding. Future funding at my agency is
            uncertain. Future climate observational programs (crucial ones)
            are threatened because of lack of funds. New accounting rules
            at my agency require climate scientists to spend unreasonable
            amounts of time writing proposals, which has reduced
            productivity.''

             ``Funding for climate research is a factor of 5-10 below
            critical mass to develop a designed climate observing system.''

             National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

             ``Include a dedicated long-term observing program with stable
            funding support for about 30 more years. The current satellite
            program does not meet climate research needs.''

             Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

             ``I have not worked directly on climate change since funding
            was eliminated in my area. Other areas of much less importance
            have been emphasized as a result. Which is a tragedy.''

             Department of Agriculture (USDA)

             ``The U.S. Climate Change Science Program has not received
            sufficient funding for needed observations, monitoring,
            research, [and] data systems.''

             U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

             ``U.S. satellite programs are in severe jeopardy. The loss of
            continuity in observational satellite data will impair progress
            in climate science.''

    V. Climate Scientists are Disheartened

        While a large majority of respondents (88 percent) agreed with the
    statement, ``U.S. Federal Government climate research is of generally
    excellent quality,'' respondents reported decreasing job satisfaction
    and a worsening environment for climate science in federal agencies:

             National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

             ``The intrusion of politics into the field is making some (me
            and others) consider change of field or career.''

             Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

             ``I am [close to] retirement and feel that I will no longer be
            able to use my abilities to produce scientific information of
            relevance to the American public. The last years of my career
            are being squandered for political reasons. I do not think I
            will be able to do any more new climate science before I
            retire. My goal is to get out the results from past research.''

             Department of Energy

             ``To watch this from another agency is so demoralizing. They
            have virtually derailed the mission of providing environmental
            services to the public and burnt billions. . .. Shocking
            tracking record!''

        Chairman Miller. Thank you, Dr. McCarthy. That was
    admirably close to five minutes.
        Mr. Maassarani.

         STATEMENT OF MR. TAREK F. MAASSARANI, STAFF ATTORNEY,
                   GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

        Mr. Maassarani. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of
    the Subcommittee, I thank you for this opportunity to share the
    Government Accountability Project investigation into the
    suppression of scientific communication. The complete findings
    can be found in the full investigative and synthesis report
    entitled, Redacting the Science of Climate Change.
        This report documents how certain government policies and
    practices have increasingly restricted the flow of politically-
    inconvenient scientific information the emerges from taxpayer-
    funded climate change research. These restrictions have
    affected the media's ability to report on the science,
    decision-maker's capacity to respond with appropriate policies,
    and the public's grasp of an environmental issue with profound
    consequences for our future.
        As lead investigator I conducted more than 40 interviews
    with climate scientists and government officials representing
    inside perspectives from numerous agencies. I reviewed
    thousands of pages of documentation obtained from Freedom of
    Information Act disclosures, as well as public and internal
    agency sources. I also examined more than 100 published news
    articles and Congressional documents.
        The investigation identified policies and practices
    requiring tight control of media communications, which resulted
    in the delay and denial of media requests and press releases.
    This considerably reduced scientists' opportunities to
    communicate the results of their research to the public. In one
    instance a national oceananic and atmospheric administration
    scientist complained that the prior rate of one media request
    every two to three weeks had slowed to one every two to three
    months as a result of new pre-approval requirements. In another
    instance a NASA scientist witnessed his press release on
    climate change edited to minimize its media impact before it
    was approved. In yet another instance a scientist described how
    on three separate occasions what he referred to as a minder,
    flew from Washington, D.C., to Hawaii and Boulder to monitor
    his interviews. With such editing, denials, delays, and
    monitoring, some scientists have given up trying to issue press
    releases or even pursue media contacts.
        The restrictions referred to in our report have increased
    steadily, albeit unevenly over time, often in response to
    upcoming elections, the publication of controversial studies,
    hurricane seasons, and most notably, the landfall of Hurricane
    Katrina. Furthermore, restrictive policies and practices are
    characterized by internal inconsistencies and a lack of
    transparency about where decisions to restrict communications
    are being made, according to what criteria, and why.
        It appears that signals from executive offices such as the
    Council on Environmental Quality are channeled to political
    appointees and politically-aligned civil servants at lower-
    level press and policy offices. These directives largely take
    place off the record, frequently deviating from the written
    guidelines, and involving individuals with few scientific
    qualifications. Whether these restrictive communication
    policies and practices have caused overt and well-publicized
    incidents or have acted by more subtle processes, their effect
    has been to misrepresent and under-represent the scientific
    knowledge generated by federal climate science agencies.
        In some case the policies and practices represent
    institutionalized constitutional and statutory infringements of
    federal employees' free speech and whistleblower rights. In
    most cases they undermine the government's inherent obligation
    to freely disseminate the results of publicly-funded research.
        To address the problems the Government Accountability
    Project recommends that Congress enact legislation to insure
    federal free speech rights and extend whistleblower
    protections. GAP lauds H.R. 985 recently passed by the House
    and urges it to be expanded to cover all employees conducting
    federally-funded scientific, technical, or other professional
    research.
        The report also presents an extensive set of
    recommendations for agencies to insure the integrity of media,
    Congressional, professional, and public communications.
    Congress should consider what legislative action is needed to
    help agencies in this regard.
        Finally, GAP asked Congress to strengthen its essential
    oversight functions with regard to the integrity of
    communications about scientific research and to insure that
    objective and independent science is the basis for policy-
    making.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Maassarani follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Tarek F. Maassarani

    Introduction

        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Subcommittee. I thank
    you for the opportunity to share the findings of my investigative
    report. Until recently, I served as full-time staff attorney and
    investigator for the Government Accountability Project, the Nation's
    leading whistleblower defense and advocacy organization. In February
    2006, prompted by the well-publicized concerns of Dr. James Hansen and
    Rick Piltz, GAP initiated an in-depth investigation to determine the
    extent of political interference with federal climate research and the
    dissemination of scientific information.
        The investigation found no incidents of direct interference with
    climate change research. Instead, unduly restrictive policies and
    practices were found to occur largely in the communication of
    ``sensitive'' scientific information to the media, the public, and
    Congress. The effect of these restrictive communications policies and
    practices has been to misrepresent and under-represent the taxpayer-
    funded scientific knowledge generated by federal climate science
    agencies and programs. The bottom line is, we need the government to be
    stimulating, not undermining, an informed public debate on important
    scientific subjects, including climate change. We have included for
    your consideration a number of recommendations for the Administration
    and the Congress that would help achieve this goal.

    The GAP Investigation

        The GAP investigation focused primarily on the effects of
    restrictive Federal Government policies and practices, especially those
    applied to control communications from particular employees on
    ``sensitive'' aspects of climate science. The investigation also
    addressed government efforts to control the communication of scientific
    climate-related information to Congress, the scientific community, and
    the public. The complete findings have been incorporated into my
    investigative and synthesis report, Redacting the Science of Climate
    Change.
        As lead investigator, I conducted more than 40 interviews with
    climate scientists, communications officers, agency and program
    officials, and journalists. These sources--both named and
    confidential--represented inside perspectives from the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration (NASA), Climate Change Science Program (CCSP),
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), United States Geological Survey,
    and National Center for Atmospheric Research, as well as local,
    national, and international media.
        In addition to interviews, I have reviewed thousands of pages of
    documentation obtained from Freedom of Information Act disclosures, as
    well as public and internal agency sources. I also reviewed more than
    100 published news articles and more than three dozen congressional
    documents including reports, testimonies, and questions for the record.

    Overview

        A perception of inappropriate political interference is widespread
    among employees of the federal climate science agencies and programs,
    as well as among journalists from national, mainstream outlets who
    cover their research. This perception is substantiated by evidence from
    inside sources, scientists' personal testimonies, journalists, and
    document disclosures.
        My report demonstrates how policies and practices have increasingly
    restricted the flow of scientific information emerging from publicly-
    funded climate change research. This has affected the media's ability
    to report on the science, public officials' capacity to respond with
    appropriate policies, and the public's grasp of an environmental issue
    with profound consequences for our future.
        The investigation found no incidents of direct interference with
    conducting climate change research. Instead, unduly restrictive
    policies and practices were found that affected the communication of
    ``sensitive'' scientific information to the media, the public, and
    Congress. In this context, the term ``sensitive scientific
    information'' is meant to signify science that is seen as leading to
    conclusions that call into question existing policy positions or
    objectives and includes, for example, some of the research dealing with
    the effects of climate change or greenhouse gases on hurricanes, sea
    levels, ice sheets, glaciers, marine life, polar bears, the water
    supply, and human society.

    Media Communications

        A review of the media policies and agency practices controlling the
    communication of scientific information at NASA, NOAA, and other
    agencies, demonstrated the following:

              Agency media policies and practices required
            scientists to obtain pre-approval from public affairs
            headquarters following an initial media request before
            proceeding with an interview. Likewise, press releases and
            press conferences also required high-level clearance.

              At times, media policies and practices mandated that
            scientists forward all relevant requests to a press officer who
            would then route the interview to other scientists or restrict
            the topics that could be discussed.

              Agency directives asked scientists to provide
            anticipated media questions and their expected answers prior to
            the interview.

              Finally, press officers frequently monitored
            interviews over conference call or in person. In one instance,
            a press officer flew out on two separate occasions from
            Washington, DC, to Hawaii, then Boulder, to monitor two
            interviews with one scientist.

        As a result, scientists lost a considerable number of opportunities
    to communicate the results of their research to the public due to delay
    or denial of interviews and/or press releases held up during a
    clearance process. In one instance, a NOAA scientist complained that
    the prior rate of one media request every two to three weeks had slowed
    to one every two to three months as a result of new pre-approval
    requirements. In another instance, a NASA scientist witnessed his press
    release on climate change edited to minimize its media impact before it
    was approved. With such denials, or delays of more than two-weeks, some
    scientists have given up trying to release them. Others feel
    discouraged from pursuing media contacts.
        The investigation has demonstrated that these restrictive policies
    and practices have increased steadily, albeit unevenly, over time. In
    2001, there were only a few isolated instances of mandatory pre-
    approval at NOAA, while most labs enjoyed a simple ``notice and recap''
    policy in which only prior notification of public affairs and a
    subsequent follow-up are required. Similarly, NASA's policy did not
    require pre-approval. At NOAA, public affairs offices then implemented
    clearance requirements following the release of a hurricane season
    outlook in 2002 and a report by Ocean Commission in 2004. In June 2004,
    NOAA issued a written media policy that codified a number of these
    prior practices. Although some NOAA laboratories continued to operate
    largely by ``notice and recap,'' pre-approval was required for certain
    ``hot button'' issues and scientists, such as one researcher who had
    recently published his findings from a modeling study of the
    relationship between hurricanes and climate change. Public affairs
    required his interviews to be monitored.
        In the weeks leading up to the 2004 presidential election, a
    regional EPA office issued a pre-approval directive and NASA scientists
    experienced numerous ``disappearances'' of press releases. In 2005, a
    year of record-setting global temperatures, politically-appointed
    senior management at NASA public affairs headquarters implemented an
    unwritten practice of requiring their special pre-approval for media
    requests and press releases concerning ``warming,'' ``melting,'' or
    ``glaciers.'' A mid-level press officer recalls these officials
    conferring with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
    and pressuring him to suppress the media communications under the
    pretext of some ``excuse.''
        At NOAA, a reminder of the media policy was again disseminated to
    certain agency laboratories at the start of the 2005 hurricane season
    and then again after the publication of a controversial study linking
    increased hurricanes activity and climate change. NOAA first widely
    publicized its media policy throughout its research branches following
    Hurricane Katrina. At around this time, documents began to reveal that
    media inquiries were required to obtain clearance from the Department
    of Commerce and the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Media
    contacts with a NOAA researcher that disputed a connection between
    hurricanes and climate change were given preference over those with
    another researcher whose models suggested a link. NOAA also posted an
    article on its website claiming an agency-wide consensus against the
    link.
        In early January of 2006, NOAA issued implementation protocols for
    the 2004 media policy, as well as a press release review process flow
    sheet. The implementation protocols explicitly require pre-approval for
    press releases and the drafting of prospective answers to anticipated
    questions, as well as routing for media requests. The press release
    flow sheet included the Department of Commerce in its 13-stage review
    process. In June 2006, an EPA scientist studying sea level rise and
    coastal erosion was required to route all media requests to his public
    affairs office.

    Public and Congressional Communications

        Interference with scientific communications to the public and
    Congress included inappropriate editing, delay, and suppression of
    reports and other printed and online material. For example, following
    its 2001 publication, senior officials prohibited all references to the
    CCSP's congressionally-mandated National Assessment of the Potential
    Consequences of Climate Variability and Change from websites,
    discussions, and subsequent assessment reports. The Administration
    similarly disowned the 2002 U.S. Climate Action Report, prepared by the
    EPA as a requirement of the United Nations Framework Convention on
    Climate Change.
        In September 2002, the Administration removed a section on climate
    change from the EPA's annual air pollution report, even though the
    topic had been discussed in the report in each of the preceding five
    years. Then in June 2003, the EPA removed an entire chapter on climate
    change after the White House had tried to so substantially alter its
    contents that leaving it in would compromise the credibility of the
    agency.
        Similarly for websites, the EPA's Global Warming website, actively
    updated prior to 2002, saw little if any activity for nearly four
    years. At about the same time that the EPA website was revived, the
    State Department website was altered to hide much of its climate-
    related materials. Although the Communications Interagency Working
    Group CCSP is mandated to prepare numerous informational products for
    the public on climate change research, its website has uploaded only a
    handful of materials since 2004.

    Conclusions

        Political interference is top-down. Directives and signals from
    executive offices such as the Council on Environmental Quality, the
    Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and
    Technology Policy are channeled through political appointees and
    younger politically-aligned career civil servants at lower-level press
    and policy offices. These channels of communications largely take place
    off the record, frequently deviating from written policy guidelines and
    involving individuals with few scientific qualifications. Whereas low-
    level agency and program support staff are typically sympathetic to the
    scientists and their science, as one scientist noted, ``the closer you
    get to Washington, the more hostile [they are to the science].'' Senior
    managers have been aware of the perception and incidents of
    interference longer than they have attempted to address them. Often,
    they may be conforming to pressures from above to downplay politically-
    inconvenient science.
        The restrictive communications policies and practices discussed
    here are largely characterized by internal inconsistencies, ambiguity,
    and a lack of transparency. They send a chilling signal to federal
    employees, including scientists and public affairs officers, that
    further freeze the flow of information.

        Whether these restrictive communications policies and practices
    have precipitated overt and, often, well-publicized incidents or have
    acted by more subtle processes, their effect has been to misrepresent
    and under-represent the taxpayer-funded scientific knowledge generated
    by federal climate science agencies and programs. In some cases, the
    policies and practices constitute systematic, institutionalized
    constitutional and statutory infringements of the federal climate
    science employees' free speech and whistleblower rights. In most cases,
    the policies and practices undermine the government's inherent
    obligation to disseminate the results of publicly-funded research.

        Increased congressional and media attention on political
    suppression and interference with climate science communication has led
    to statements of commitment to scientific openness by Administration
    officials and a loosening of communication policies and their
    application. This pressure has led to actual or anticipated reforms, as
    well as improved morale, at NASA and NOAA, though institutional
    problems and policy weaknesses remain (See, e.g., GAP's memorandum to
    NASA scientists, enclosed as Attachment 1). Even in rhetoric, the
    reform movement has largely missed ongoing problems at EPA and CCSP.

    Recommendations

        GAP recommends that the executive branch and all federal agencies
    supporting climate change research:

              Implement a clear and transparent ``notice and
            recap'' media policy in which only a prior notification to
            public affairs and a subsequent follow-up are required.
            Correspondingly, eliminate mandatory pre-approval for media
            contacts, selective routing of media requests, drafting of
            anticipated questions and answers by scientists prior to
            interviews, and monitoring of media communications.

              Develop a transparent communications policy at the
            Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and streamline the
            approval process for CCSP products and communications.

              Reaffirm and educate federal employees about their
            right to speak on any subject so long as they make clear that
            they are expressing their personal views and do not use
            government time and resources--with the important proviso that
            no restrictions apply when federal employees are exercising
            their whistleblower rights to disclose unclassified information
            that is reasonably believed to evidence illegality, gross
            waste, gross mismanagement, abuse of power, or substantial and
            specific danger to public health or safety.

              Bring media policies into compliance with the Anti-
            Gag Statute, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Lloyd-
            Lafollette Act for communications with Congress, and related
            provisions.

              Ensure the timely and pro-active coordination of
            press releases and media contacts so as to promote rather than
            limit the flow of information.

              Ensure that content editing and scientific quality
            control remain with qualified scientists and the peer-review
            process.

              Reaffirm and educate federal employees on their right
            to review any final draft that is to be published under their
            name or that substantially references their research.

              Establish accountability procedures that increase
            transparency and provide for internal reporting of undue
            interference with science.

              Investigate and correct inappropriate policies,
            practices, and incidents such as those described in this
            report.

        GAP recommends that Congress:

              Enact legislation that extends federal free speech
            and whistleblower rights to all employees conducting federally-
            funded scientific, technical, or other professional research,
            whether the employee is part of the civil service, a
            contractor, grant recipient, or receives taxpayer support in
            any other manner.

              Ensure that objective and independent science is the
            basis for policy-making.

              Strengthen its essential oversight functions with
            regard to the integrity of communications about scientific
            research.

    MEMORANDUM

    To: Climate Scientists
    From: Government Accountability Project
    Re: Analysis of NASA's Recently Released Media Policy

        The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is issuing advisory
    comments on NASA's new media policy that it released yesterday, March
    30. The new policy came in response to public outcry over NASA's
    suppression of climate science research inconsistent with the Bush
    Administration's political agenda. NASA is touting the development as a
    free-speech breakthrough for agency scientists.
        GAP identified the areas in which the new policy is an improvement:

              NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's reassuring
            rhetoric is of symbolic value, demonstrating official respect
            for scientific freedom.

              The new media policy does not cover scientific
            reports, web postings, or professional dialogue such as at
            conferences, allowing scientists to share information with
            their colleagues without going through public affairs political
            appointees.

              The policy officially recognizes the free speech
            right for scientists to express their ``personal views'' when
            they make clear that their statements are not being made on
            behalf of NASA.

        However, in six critical areas the new policy falls short of
    genuine scientific freedom and accountability, and potentially
    undermines the positive guarantees:

              While recognizing the existence of a ``personal
            views'' exception, the policy doesn't announce the
            circumstances when that right cancels out conflicting
            restrictions, which are phrased in absolute terms applying to
            contexts such as ``any activities'' with significant media
            potential. This leaves a cloud of uncertainty that translates
            into a chilling effect for scientists.

              The policy fails to comply with the legally-mandated
            requirements of the Anti-Gag Statute to explicitly include
            notice that the Whistleblower Protection Act and Lloyd-
            Lafollette Act (for congressional communications) limit and
            supersede its restrictions.

              The policy institutionalizes prior restraint
            censorship through ``review and clearance by appropriate
            officials'' for ``all NASA employees'' involved in ``preparing
            and issuing'' public information. This means that scientists
            can be censored and will need advance permission from the
            ``appropriate'' official before anything can be released.

              The policy defies the WPA by requiring prior approval
            for all whistleblower disclosures that are ``Sensitive But
            Unclassified'' (SBU). The legal definition of SBU is broad and
            vague, to the point that it can be interpreted to sweep in
            virtually anything. The WPA only permits that restriction for
            classified documents or those whose public release is
            specifically banned by statute.

              The policy bans employees' free speech and WPA rights
            to make anonymous disclosures, requiring them to work with NASA
            public affairs ``prior to releasing information'' or ``engaging
            in any activities or events. . .that have the potential to
            generate significant media or public interest or inquiry.''

              The policy gives NASA the power to control the timing
            of all disclosures, which means scientists can be gagged until
            the information is dated and the need for the public to know
            about critical scientific findings has passed.

        In December of last year, NASA climatologist Dr. James Hansen was
    threatened with ``dire consequences'' by a political appointee for
    statements he made about the consequences of climate change. According
    to GAP's legal director, Tom Devine, ``Under this so-called reform, Dr.
    Hansen would still be in danger of `dire consequences' for sharing his
    research, although that threat is what sparked the new policy in the
    first place. The new policy violates the Whistleblower Protection Act,
    the Anti-Gag Statute, and the law protecting communications with
    Congress, the Lloyd-Lafollette Act. The loopholes are not innocent
    mistakes or oversights. GAP extensively briefed the agency lawyer on
    these requirements, who insisted he understood them fully. NASA is
    intentionally defying the good government anti-secrecy laws.''

        Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Maassarani. Mr. Kueter.

      STATEMENT OF MR. JEFF KUETER, PRESIDENT, GEORGE C. MARSHALL
                               INSTITUTE

        Mr. Kueter. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I
    appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I am
    Jeff Kueter, President of the George Marshall Institute, a non-
    profit organization focused on improving the comprehension of
    important scientific and technical issues by the public, the
    media, and policy-makers. We study environmental and national
    security topics, with a particular emphasis on climate change,
    ballistic missile defense, and space security.
        I am here today because of our concern about the character
    of the climate change debate and efforts to discredit the
    reputation of people who do not share the view that we face an
    impending climate crisis. These efforts are inconsistent with
    the principles of science, sound policy-making, and the
    advancement of knowledge, as well as our principles of free
    speech and association. Healthy debate is an engine for
    progress and change.
        Our climate is a complex, chaotic system. We have learned a
    great deal about how it operates but our knowledge is far from
    complete. Global temperatures have increased over the past 50
    or 100 years, human activities contribute to that warming, and
    actions to adjust that legitimate risk are appropriate.
    Nevertheless, the inter-governmental panel on climate change in
    the National Academy of Sciences document many important gaps
    in our understanding of critical climate processes and
    identifies significant gaps in the observational data. The
    current debate is not over what is scientific fact. It is over
    interpretations of analyses, the quality of data, professional
    judgments, and the confidence that can be placed in climate
    models. That the IPCC for example, reached one conclusion does
    not make that a fact. Reasonable people can reach different
    conclusions about the extent of human influence on climate and
    the range of potential future impacts as the National Academy
    has done, as well as the range of public policy choices.
    Discussing these different interpretations is not misleading
    the public, nor is it providing inaccurate impressions as has
    been alleged. To charge otherwise is tantamount to saying that
    the prevailing views should never be challenged. The history of
    science is replete with examples where the prevailing view was
    overtaken by new information. Significant uncertainty is not an
    obstacle to action, it is a signal for caution and flexibility.
        In considering the current debate, several other factors
    deserve recognition. First, all the participants in policy-
    making have preferences, interests, and objectives that color
    the interpretation of often-tentative scientific results.
    Conclusions drawn from incomplete science are more a reflection
    of individual preferences than the weight of scientific
    evidence. All participants in the climate debate use the media
    to frame issues in ways that are favorable to their preferred
    positions, but the media is criticized for including the views
    of so-called skeptics and their reporting. The media's role is
    to inform, not to judge by censoring. Reporters should not be
    criticized for including diverse views. Instead, critical
    analyses of all sides should be encouraged. Claims that this
    confuses rather than informs presumes a certainty of foresight
    that simply does not exist.
        Secondly, alleged political interference is claimed to be
    unique. Our book, Politicizing Science, documents numerous
    examples of the damaging intersection of science and politics.
    Further, those who claim the current situation is somehow
    different should become familiar with the story of Dr. Will
    Happer, the Marshall Institute's Chairman. Early in the
    Clinton-Gore Administration Dr. Happer, then head of the
    Department of Energy's Office of Science, questioned the Vice
    President's views on climate change and ozone depletion.
    Despite his scientific credentials, he was summarily dismissed
    at Gore's request.
        Third, in today's debate evidence of a financial tie is
    often sufficient to condemn without proof that views, opinions,
    or conclusions were altered in any way. Arguments about funding
    bias rest on the assumption that funders demand results that
    are solely consistent with their views and interests. It also
    assumes that integrity and objectivity are always for sale.
    Unfortunately, this claim is frequently repeated without
    rigorous evaluation or evidence to support it.
        Let me be clear. No grant to the Institute is contingent on
    support for a specific point of view or conclusion. Our views
    on climate change long predate any support by any corporate
    entity. Nevertheless, the Institute is cited as an example of
    an institution propagating misinformation and confusion at the
    behest of corporate support. The Union of Concerned Scientists'
    January, 2007, report and its accompanying press release single
    us out for close scrutiny. In its references to the Institute,
    the UCS makes basic factual errors and fails to deal with, and
    fails to challenge the substance of our work, and my written
    testimony documents those areas in detail.
        Often overlooked in this discussion is the critical
    dependence of the American scientific enterprise on federal
    funding. The pursuit of that funding can generate unwelcome
    pressures to conform to prevailing beliefs. Studies of
    organizations and bureaucracy revealed the existence of
    distinct agendas and preferences that guide actions, and in the
    case of grant-making organizations, the relationships that they
    enter into.
        If funding alone invariably affects findings and opinions,
    then what should we make of the significantly-greater amount
    spent by foundations and the Federal Government? For the period
    2000, 2002, private foundations conservatively spent 35 to $50
    million each year on climate-related projects. Such projects
    accounted for over 25 percent of the three-year total reported
    grants and contributions received by 10 of the top 20
    institutions. At the same time the Federal Government provides
    two to $4 million each year for climate change research and
    related environmental sciences. In the field of atmospheric
    sciences, for example, federally-funded R&D accounts for more
    than 80 percent of the total expenditures for nearly one-half
    of the top 30 institutions in the five-year period we surveyed.
        Who funds an organization or individual scientist or who
    they associate with is less relevant than the quality of their
    work. This point was made crystal clear more than a decade ago
    when Ted Koppel rejected Vice President Gore's efforts to
    discredit climate scientists on his program, Night Line. Koppel
    observed, ``There is some irony in the fact that Vice President
    Gore is resorting to political means to achieve what should
    ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis. The issues
    of global warming and ozone depletion are undeniably important,
    but the issues have to be debated and settled on scientific
    grounds, not politics.'' There is nothing new about major
    institutions seeking to influence science to their own ends.
    The measure of good science is neither the politics of the
    scientist nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It
    is the immersion of hypotheses into the acid of truth. That is
    the hard way to do it, but it is the only way that works. That
    philosophy should guide this debate today.
        Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kueter follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Jeff Kueter
        Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee,
    I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Jeff
    Kueter, President of the George C. Marshall Institute. The George
    Marshall Institute (GMI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded
    in 1984, focused on how science is used in making public policy. The
    Institute's analyses are designed to improve the comprehension of the
    public, the media, and policy-makers of important scientific and
    technical issues and help them distinguish between opinion and
    scientific fact so that decisions on public policy issues can be based
    on solid, factual information, rather than opinion or unproven
    hypotheses. We publish reports and host roundtables and workshops. Our
    activities focus on environmental and national security topics, with a
    particular emphasis on ballistic missile defense and space security.
        With respect to climate change and its public policy ramifications,
    the Institute's position, held for nearly 20 years, is that
    distinguishing human influence from natural variability is not
    sufficiently understood and that many uncertainties about critical
    climate processes require resolution before an adequate understanding
    is established for projecting future climate changes. Statements that
    greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of
    human activity, that they contribute to warming, that the temperature
    has increased in the past 50 and 100 years and that humans influence
    climate only tell us the obvious.\1\ The plain facts are that we do not
    know how much human activity is influencing the climate and cannot know
    what temperature or climate will be 50 or 100 years from now. The
    Marshall Institute has long held the position that climate policy
    should be related to our state of knowledge. We have documented policy
    actions that satisfy that standard.\2\ However, many proposed actions
    based on the belief of an impending climate catastrophe are not
    consistent with our state of knowledge.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Research Council, Climate Change Science: An Analysis
    of Some Key Questions. (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,
    2001); Committee on Global Change Research, National Research Council,
    Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade
    (National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 1999), 127-129; J.T.
    Houghton et al., Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis;
    Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
    University Press, 2001), 698; James Schlesinger et al., Climate Science
    and Policy: Making the Connection (Washington, D.C.: George Marshall
    Institute, 2001); and William O'Keefe and Jeff Kueter, Climate Models:
    A Primer (Washington, D.C.: George Marshall Institute, 2005).
        \2\ James Schlesinger and Robert Sproull, Climate Science and
    Policy: Making the Connection (Washington, D.C.: George Marshall
    Institute, 2002).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Censorship, the Pursuit of Consensus, and Misperceptions About Climate
                        Science

        It is, indeed, unfortunate that we are here today discussing calls
    to effectively silence debate on climate science. The censorship of
    voices that challenge and provoke is antithetical to liberty and
    contrary to the traditions and values of free societies. That such
    calls are now coming from venerable scientific societies, such as
    Britain's Royal Society,\3\ and U.S. public policy institutes is
    disturbing and should raise concerns worldwide about the intentions of
    those seeking to silence honest debate and discussion of our most
    challenging environmental issue--climate change.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Bob Ward, ``Royal Society Letter to Nick Thomas, Esso UK
    Limited,'' September 4, 2006.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The foundation of science, as well as its contributions to the
    betterment of mankind, is based on skepticism and debate. Schools teach
    that science is the clash of ideas, sharpened by data and observation,
    and subject to revision and reversal. Political discourse rests on the
    principle that all voices have the right to be heard and that any
    person is free to associate with whomever they so choose. Science
    demands those freedoms and scientists ought to embrace them.
        The effort to promote and assert a `consensus' on climate change
    science subverts the basic principles of science and is reaching the
    point where the very freedoms on which science depends are now in
    jeopardy--not through action of government but by scientists
    themselves.
        Yet, a careful and thoughtful examination of this issue plainly
    reveals that the debate is not about science. It is about different
    interpretations of studies and data when different assumptions and
    models are used. There is a major distinction between interpretation of
    data and established, verifiable facts. Much of what is put forward as
    fact are interpretations of data and the projections of climate models
    which have not been scientifically validated and which are driven more
    by assumptions than extensive observational data and measurements. In a
    free society, policy-makers and the public are free to judge such
    interpretations and the weight of evidence that supports them.
        It is suggested that the guarded language of serious scientific
    dialogue is being mischaracterized as vagueness and uncertainty as part
    of an intentional campaign to misguide the public. In fact, the drive
    to end discussion on climate change is a mischaracterization of what
    the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its Third
    Assessment Report about uncertainties, as well as statements from the
    National Academy of Sciences (NAS). As the IPCC, the NAS, and the U.S.
    Climate Science Strategic Plan, which has been endorsed by the NAS,
    clearly demonstrate, there are many critical uncertainties in our
    understanding of the climate system. Until these uncertainties are
    reduced and our understanding of the climate system is greater,
    reasonable people and organizations can reach different conclusions
    about the extent of human influence on climate and potential future
    impacts. It is puzzling, therefore, that the American public should be
    told that there is nothing more to know about the human relationship
    with climate.
        For example, in addressing the effect of human activities, a
    National Research Council (NRC) review reveals numerous qualifications
    and assumptions:

             ``Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural
            variability inherent in the climate record and the
            uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing
            agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between
            the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the
            observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be
            unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the
            observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability
            as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage,
            but it does not constitute proof of one because the model
            simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the
            decadal to century time scale.'' \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research
    Council, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
    (Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, 2001), 17.

        There is little question that human activities, activities which
    raise people from poverty, allow rising living standards and improve
    human society, have had an influence on the climate. The question is to
    what extent and how strongly. As the quote above shows, this is not a
    settled matter.
        Further, the Executive Summary of Working Group I, Chapter 12 of
    the IPCC's Third Assessment Report contains the following lengthy
    statement about uncertainties:

             ``A number of important uncertainties remain. These include:

                      Discrepancies between the vertical profile of
                    temperature change in the troposphere seen in
                    observations and models. These have been reduced as
                    more realistic forcing histories have been used in
                    models, although not fully resolved. Also, differences
                    between observed surface and lower-tropospheric trends
                    over the last two decades cannot be fully reproduced by
                    model simulations.

                      Large uncertainties in estimates of internal
                    climate variability from models and observations,
                    though as noted above, these are unlikely (bordering on
                    very unlikely) to be large enough to nullify the claim
                    that a detectable climate change has taken place.

                      Considerable uncertainty in the
                    reconstruction of solar and volcanic forcing which are
                    based on proxy or limited observational data for all
                    but the last two decades. Detection of the influence of
                    greenhouse gases on climate appears to be robust to
                    possible amplification of the solar forcing by ozone/
                    solar or solar/cloud interactions, provided these do
                    not alter the pattern or time dependence of the
                    response to solar forcing. Amplification of the solar
                    signal by these processes, which are not yet included
                    in models, remains speculative.

                      Large uncertainties in anthropogenic forcing
                    are associated with the effects of aerosols. The
                    effects of some anthropogenic factors, including
                    organic carbon, black carbon, biomass aerosols, and
                    changes in land use, have not been included in
                    detection and attribution studies. Estimates of the
                    size and geographic pattern of the effects of these
                    forcing vary considerably, although individually their
                    global effects are estimated to be relatively small.

                      Large differences in the response of
                    different models to the same forcing. These
                    differences, which are often greater that the
                    difference in response in the same model with and
                    without aerosol effects, highlight the large
                    uncertainties in climate change prediction and the need
                    to quantify uncertainty and reduce it through better
                    observational data sets and model improvement.'' \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Houghton et al., Climate Change 2001, http://www.grida.no/
    climate/ipcc-tar/wg1/442.htm.

        There is nothing in our ongoing review of the new IPCC assessment
    to suggest major changes in these uncertainties.
        The referenced uncertainties are important in considering both the
    detection and attribution of climate change. Detection of climate
    change is the ability to say, with some degree of confidence, that the
    climate has changed. Attribution of climate change is the ability to
    say, with some degree of confidence, why the climate has changed. There
    is little question that in many parts of the world there has been a
    detectable change in climate in the last century. The IPCC authors are
    correct in saying that this change can be identified despite the large
    uncertainties in estimates of internal variability. However,
    attribution is a more difficult problem, and the high level of
    uncertainty gives us reason to question the certainty of the IPCC's
    conclusion.
        In summarizing their review of the state of science, the National
    Research Council used highly qualified and nuanced language which
    further supports our position that the question of human attribution is
    far from settled. The NRC stated:

             ``The changes observed over the last several decades are
            likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out
            that some significant part of these changes is also a
            reflection of natural variability. . .. Because there is
            considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the
            climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of
            greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the
            magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and
            subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ National Research Council, Climate Change Science, 1.

        If anything, the prevailing view is that we are not able to answer
    many significant questions about climate change and, at this point, the
    evidence available is ``suggestive'' but does not ``constitute proof.''
        It is important to recognize that these statements are solely the
    product of the scientists who participated in the process and those
    representatives of government assigned to produce the summary reports.
    Scientists have declined to participate in the process, citing its
    overt biases or unwillingness to commit the time and effort demanded.
    The failure to give adequate recognition to uncertainty and to
    reasonable interpretations of its impact on climate models and public
    policy contributes greatly to the contentiousness in the current
    debate. Further, expert analytical judgments are subjective and
    tentative. As the recent debate over the paleoclimate temperature
    history has plainly revealed, analytical studies are subject to
    numerous and sometimes substantial questions that alter their
    conclusions significantly. Expert judgment is not science and neither
    is the output of models that have been calibrated but not validated.
    The fact that a range of possible climate futures result from running a
    single scenario through the models relied on by the IPCC make it clear
    that the science is not settled and that there is room for differences
    of opinion and debate.
        Nevertheless, as is shown, the statements themselves detail
    numerous significant uncertainties. That the participants in the IPCC,
    for example, reached one conclusion does not make that a fact. Fair
    minded people can reach other conclusions, as the National Research
    Council did when it concluded that ``current estimates of the magnitude
    of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future
    adjustments (either upward or downward).''
        Providing a different interpretation about available data and
    understanding is not misleading the public nor is it providing
    inaccurate or misleading impressions. To charge otherwise is tantamount
    to saying that a prevailing view should never be challenged. The
    history of science is replete with examples of where the prevailing
    view was overtaken by new information. We once believed that Pluto was
    a planet and generations learned of it in that context. Yet, with the
    expansion of knowledge and sophistication of techniques, we learned
    that we were wrong and now Pluto is no longer a planet. Eugenics was
    once supported by the best minds in the Nation before persistence
    discredited it. Lysenkoism severely damaged Russian agriculture and did
    great damage to the fields of biology and genetics before it was
    rejected.
        Expressions of doubt--skepticism--about aspects of climate science
    and projections of future impacts are claimed by some to hinder sound
    policy. Significant uncertainty is not an obstacle to action. It is a
    signal for caution and flexibility.

    Politics and Science: A Permanently Politicized Relationship?

        Politics and science are intrinsically related. As scientific and
    technical matters have become more influential on matters of public
    policy and the financing of the scientific enterprise become dependent
    on the Federal Government, there are strong pressures exerted on
    science and scientists. All the participants in policy-making--
    politicians, bureaucracies, public policy institutes, industry, the
    media, and scientists--have their own preferences, interests, and
    objectives. These decidedly different views and preferences color the
    interpretation of often tentative scientific results and the
    conclusions drawn about the science may be more a reflection of the
    preferences of the viewer than the science.
        Some politicians are inclined to focus on scientific results that
    support their policy preferences. Similarly, some scientists tailor
    their research and slant interpretations as a way to curry favor, gain
    funding, and enhance recognition of their work. Most do not engage in
    such behaviors and instead act honestly and with integrity.
        Scientists, politicians, and public policy institutes regularly use
    the media to frame public policy issues in ways that are favorable to
    their preferred positions. While some see this as informing the public,
    it can be nothing more than clear manipulation. This tactic is
    effective because of what the late historian Daniel Boorstin saw as a
    growing gap between what an informed citizen can know and should
    know.\7\ Information overload and the trend toward ``sound bites'' have
    produced circumstances where citizens have lost their capacity for
    skepticism. Reality often is now measured against created images
    instead of the reverse.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Daniel Boorstin, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America
    (New York: Harper & Row, 1964).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The media is also criticized for including the views of the so-
    called skeptics in their reporting. The media's role, of course, is to
    provide information to the public. Reporters should not be criticized
    for including diverse views in their work.
        In today's highly charged environment of climate change policy, it
    is claimed that the political interference with climate scientists is
    unique. It is alleged that federal scientists are not free to speak
    their minds and are subject to oversight by political appointees. The
    situation is neither unique nor exclusive to one political party. Our
    book, Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policy-Making, documents
    numerous past examples of where science and politics intersected with
    damaging impacts on science and negative public policy outcomes.\8\
    Further, those who believe the current situation is unique should make
    themselves familiar with the story of Dr. Will Happer. As told by
    Happer in Politicizing Science and widely reported at the time of its
    occurrence, in the early months of the Clinton-Gore Administration, Dr.
    Happer, then head of the Department of Energy's Office of Science,
    questioned the Vice President's views on climate change and ozone
    depletion. Despite his scientific credentials, he was summarily
    dismissed at Gore's direction.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Michael Gough, ed., Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of
    Policy-Making (Palo Alto, CA: Hoover Institute Press, 2003).
        \9\ William Happer, ``Harmful Politicization of Science'' in Gough,
    Politicizing Science, 45-56; Holman Jenkins, ``Al Gore Leads a Purge,''
    Wall Street Journal, May 25, 1993.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Further, efforts are often made to impugn the credibility of those
    engaged in the debate through assertions that their views are a product
    of financial relationships rather than sincerely held beliefs or
    objective research. All too frequently evidence of a financial tie is
    sufficient to condemn, without proof that the tie altered the views,
    opinions, or conclusions in any way. The public discourse suffers as
    arguments are not explored in sufficient detail.
        Often overlooked or ignored in such discussions is the fact that
    the American scientific enterprise is critically dependent on funding
    from the Federal Government. Without public funds, the burgeoning
    enterprise of universities and researchers would contract dramatically.
    While few would dispute the value of the contributions made by the
    government-supported scientific enterprise, some facets of government
    financing of science are troublesome.\10\ Public funding can generate
    unwelcome pressures on scientists to conform to prevailing beliefs.
    Public funding is also said to breed alarmism and facilitate distortion
    in public discourse.\11\ Studies of organizations and bureaucracies
    demonstrate that, over time, institutions devise strategies to
    perpetuate their continued existence and encourage their expansion.
    Organizations have agendas and preferences and these guide the actions
    they take and, in the case of a grant making organization, the
    relationships they enter into. Bureaucratic organizations charged with
    distributing public resources exert power and influence over their
    environment as they have considerable autonomy within the policy-making
    process, are supported by strong clientele groups, and are very
    internally cohesive.\12\ As bureaucratic institutions mature, they
    develop structures, processes, and procedures designed to preserve the
    integrity of the organization, socialize its workforce to support the
    mores of the institution, and build alliances and relationships with
    external interests and political overseers to assist its growth and
    expansion.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ For example, see Linda Cohen and Roger Noll, The Technology
    Pork Barrel (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute, 1991); Daniel
    Greenberg, Science, Money, and Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago
    Press, 2001); and James Savage, Funding Science in America (Cambridge,
    U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
        \11\ Gough, Politicizing Science, 2-5; Steven Milloy and Michael
    Gough, Silencing Science (Washington, D.C.: CATO Institute Press,
    1998); Marc Morano, ``Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to
    `Religious Belief.' '' CNSNews.com, December 2, 2004.
        \12\ See, for example, Kenneth Meier, Politics and Bureaucracy:
    Policy-making in the Fourth Branch of Government (Wadsworth: Belmont,
    CA: Wadsworth, 1987), 101-110.
        \13\ Meier, Politics, 57-77.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The U.S. Government is the main source of funding for academic
    research and development at colleges and universities. With the growing
    number of federal research supporting departments and agencies and the
    emergence of new federal missions such as the environmental sciences,
    the academic research enterprise has grown substantially. While the
    growth in federal support for R&D brings new opportunities, it also has
    resulted in near complete dependence of individual researchers and
    university programs on publicly-financed R&D.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Ibid., 102-103.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Yet, the focus remains on the alleged distorting influence of
    corporate funding on scientific results. One of the most prominent and
    frequently voiced fears is that private interests can undermine
    objectivity, inject bias and error, lead to the suppression of results,
    and perhaps even precipitate outright fraud. That claim rests on the
    assumption that private interests demand results that are solely
    consistent with their views and interests. It also rests on the
    assumption that integrity and objectivity are always for sale.
    Unfortunately, the claim is frequently repeated without the benefit of
    rigorous evaluation or evidence to support it.
        When the research process is transparent and results are open for
    review, it is difficult for bias, fraud, and suppression to long
    prevail. And, there can be serious legal and financial consequences
    from such behavior. Those potential consequences provide strong
    incentives to avoid it.
        The George C. Marshall Institute takes its mission seriously and,
    consistent with its principles, works diligently to publish reports
    that highlight honest assessments of the science. We support a
    scientific community that can do its work, generate data, test
    hypotheses, and educate free of politicization. This campaign to shut
    off funding of organizations that do not accept the global warming
    orthodoxy demonstrates that others do not.
        We also want to be perfectly clear--no grant to the Institute is
    contingent on support for a specific point of view or conclusion. Our
    views on climate change long pre-date any support from any corporate
    entity. Grants to support the Institute's programs are made without
    conditions. Like many public policy institutes, the Marshall Institute
    receives support from foundations, individuals, and corporations.
        Nevertheless, the Marshall Institute is cited as an example of an
    institution propagating misinformation and confusion at the behest of
    corporate support. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
    report, Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air, released in January 2007, and its
    accompanying press release singles out the Marshall Institute for close
    scrutiny.\15\ Specific to its references to the Marshall Institute, the
    UCS makes basic factual errors and fails to deny the substance of our
    work:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Union of Concerned Scientists, Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air:
    How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on
    Climate Science, (January 3, 2007), http://www.ucsusa.org/news/
    press-release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html.

              Sallie Baliunas is not a Marshall Institute board
            member or the Institute's Senior Scientist, as is stated on
            page 15. She stepped down from both those positions more than a
            year ago. Nor is she Chair of the Science Advisory Board as is
            claimed in Table 2 on page 34. The Science Advisory Board has
            not existed since 2001. The report references a six-year old
            archived website to obtain basic information about the
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Institute's organizational structure (see footnote 204).

              Willie Soon is not a Marshall Institute Senior
            Scientist as is claimed in Table 2 on page 35. Again by relying
            on a version of the Institute's website archived by a third
            party, the UCS reports out-dated and inaccurate information
            (see footnote 261). Dr. Soon stepped down from his position as
            Senior Scientist several years ago.

              The Marshall Institute did not provide a grant to the
            Tech Central Science Foundation in 2004 as is asserted on page
            32. We received a grant for $12,602 from them and that grant
            supported a project focused on risk assessment in the
            regulation of chemicals, not climate change.

              Neither of the pieces by Baliunas cited in footnote
            78 merit the weak criticism delivered by the UCS. Most
            significantly, both pieces were written before the Institute
            received any corporate support. The Marshall Institute did not
            begin accepting corporate contributions until 1999, while both
            pieces were published in 1995 & 1996.\16\ Second, both pieces
            are intended to review aspects of the scientific debates of the
            time for the general public. They examine a series of claims
            about climate, including solar influences, the Arctic, severe
            weather, and much more.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ See a statement by a past Institute Executive Director
    discussing the topic at http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=17,
    which is a reprint of an op-ed appearing in the Wall Street Journal on
    July 2, 1997.

              A National Academy of Sciences panel endorsed the
            core premise of the Baliunas-Soon analysis in its examination
            of the past temperature record (critiqued on page 15). The NAS
            panel concluded that Earth's temperatures were relatively
            warmer during the Medieval Warm Period (approx. 1000 A.D.),
            then cooler during the Little Ice Age (approx. 1700 A.D.), and
            have increased since then. Sparse data coverage for the period
            before 1600 A.D. prevented the NAS from reaching definitive
            conclusions about temperature trends before that date; however
            some reconstructions before 1000 A.D. show surface temperatures
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            comparable in warmth to the early 20th century.

               The NAS also expressed ``less confidence'' in the original
            conclusions of the Mann et al. ``hockey stick'' used by the
            IPCC because ``the uncertainties inherent in temperature
            reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger
            than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the
            available proxies record temperature information on such short
            timescales.'' \17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last
    2,000 Years, National Research Council, Surface Temperature
    Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Washington, D.C.: National
    Research Council, 2006), 3 http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html.

               An independent review of the statistical methods used in
            constructing the ``hockey stick'' revealed additional
            shortcomings. The review led by Professor Edward Wegman of
            George Mason University concluded that the ``assessment that
            the decade of the 1990s was likely the hottest decade of the
            millennium and that 1998 was likely the hottest year of the
            millennium cannot be supported by their analysis.'' \18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Edward Wegman et al., Ad Hoc Committee Report on the `Hockey
    Stick' Global Climate Reconstruction (Washington, D.C. 2006), 4-5
    http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/
    07142006-Wegman-Report.pdf

              John Christy and Steven McIntyre are not
            ``affiliated'' with the Marshall Institute as is suggested on
            pages 23-24. They have participated in our public events as
            invited guests and Dr. Christy wrote a chapter for our book,
            Shattered Consensus, but neither is formally affiliated with
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            the Institute.

              The Institute's book, Shattered Consensus, is cited
            as an example of ``information laundering'' (pg. 12) yet the
            UCS provides no refutation of the contents of the 10 chapters
            in this well-reviewed book. Should the rights of these authors
            to publish a book be left to the UCS to decide? The authors of
            Shattered Consensus are experienced scholars with recognition
            and credits meriting attention to their views. They each have
            significant qualifications in their fields. For example, the
            book's editor, Patrick Michaels, was a co-author of the climate
            science paper of the year for 2004 recognized by the
            Association of American Geographers.

              There is no evidence to suggest that the work
            undertaken by Dr. Seitz, one of America's most noted scientists
            and the Institute's emeritus chair, adhered to anything but the
            highest standards (see page 16); a fact which even the UCS
            acknowledges. Dr. Frederick Seitz is a distinguished and
            acclaimed scientist. He is president emeritus of Rockefeller
            University, a premier biomedical research institution. He is a
            recipient of the National Medal of Science, the Nation's
            highest award in science, for his contributions ``to the
            foundation of the modern quantum theory of the solid state of
            matter.'' He is also a recipient of the fourth Vannevar Bush
            Award presented by the National Science Board. His work, The
            Modern Theory of Solids, was the base from which generations of
            students learned about solid state physics and served to define
            the field. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences, he also
            served as its President. His contributions to science and this
            country are beyond question.

               Dr. Seitz is free to express his views and opinions on
            climate change as he sees fit. The UCS singles out his
            involvement with a research program funded by R.J. Reynolds in
            an attempt to prove that he was a pawn in tobacco's scientific
            disinformation campaign. Yet, the research overseen by Dr.
            Seitz is not criticized in any way. In fact, the research was
            of the highest quality, with one of the scientists supported
            later earning a Nobel Prize.

        Nevertheless, if we accept that the source of funding invariably
    affects findings and opinions, then what should we make of the
    significantly greater amount of money spent by environmental advocacy
    groups that promote the notion of an impending climate catastrophe?
    Governments, private foundations, and non-profit institutions worldwide
    spend orders of magnitude more to support the view that apocalyptic
    climate change is near. According to data for the period 2000-2002,
    private foundations conservatively spend $35-50 million each year on
    climate-related projects. This support was significant for many of the
    receiving institutions, which are principally public policy institutes
    and advocacy organizations. Climate change-related projects accounted
    for over 25 percent of the three-year total reported grants and
    contributions received by 10 of the top 20 institutions.\19\ At the
    same, the Federal Government provides $2-4 billion per year for climate
    change research and related environmental sciences. Those funds are
    significant to the researchers and the research institutions that
    receive it. In 28 of the top 30 performing universities, federal
    financing accounted for more than 50 percent of the institution's
    expenditures on atmospheric R&D.\20\ Nearly one-half of the top-30
    institutions depended on federal support for more than 80 percent of
    their resources in this five-year period (1998-2002). By comparison,
    the Federal Government provided 59 percent of total R&D funding at
    academic institutions in 2001.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Jeff Kueter, Funding Flows for Climate Change Research and
    Related Activities (Washington, D.C.: George Marshall Institute, 2005),
    4.
        \20\ Ibid., 10.
        \21\ National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators-
    2004 (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 2004), Chap.5, p.
    5.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We would never call for organizations to stop their funding, even
    though they make statements that clearly are exaggerations and have no
    scientific basis. Public policy institutes and think tanks play an
    important role in American policy-making. They are free to disagree
    with us just as we are free to make our views known.
        Instead of addressing the substance of the debate over the science
    and its meaning for public policy, public discussion has regressed to
    inferring motives and attacking sources of support in an effort to
    silence voices of dissent. Unfounded allegations and unjustified
    attacks are a poor substitute for open and candid debate.
        It is more than ironic, that most of the so called skeptics focus
    their criticisms on the substance of research and analyses while many
    who claim that climate science is settled and that we face a climate
    catastrophe are resorting to character assassination. Our nation
    rejected McCarthyism 50 years ago and we should not allow its rebirth
    in another form.
        More important than the source of funding is the substance of what
    an organization produces. What counts is whether the findings stand up
    to critical examination. Are they reproducible? Can they be verified or
    falsified?
        Ted Koppel best summarized the situation in 1994 when he criticized
    a similar effort by then Vice President Gore. His admonition applies as
    well today as it did then:

             ``There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore,
            one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White
            House in this century, that he is resorting to political means
            to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely
            scientific basis. . . The issues of global warming and ozone
            depletion are undeniably important. The future of mankind may
            depend on how this generation deals with them. But the issues
            have to be debated and settled on scientific grounds, not
            politics. There is nothing new about major institutions seeking
            to influence science to their own ends. The church did it,
            ruling families have done it, the communists did it, and so
            have others, in the name of anti-communism. But it has always
            been a corrupting influence, and it always will be. The measure
            of good science is neither the politics of the scientist nor
            the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the
            immersion of hypotheses into the acid of truth. That's the hard
            way to do it, but it's the only way that works.'' \22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Ted Koppel, ``Is Environmental Science for Sale?'' ABC News
    Nightline Transcript, February 24, 1994.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Improving the Value of Science

        Preserving the integrity of science in the public policy process is
    an important goal. But it would be unrealistic to think that
    politicization is avoidable. The science on public policy issues is
    rarely, if ever, definitive. There will always be uncertainties that
    need to be addressed and matters that require judgment in translating
    science into policy options and analyzing them and their implications.
    Given the inherent uncertainties in policy planning and the value
    judgments that are inherent in the policy process, there is no way to
    avoid ``politicizing'' science. Policy-making by its nature is
    political and always will be. What can be done are improvements in
    policy planning and analysis that improve the quality and value of
    science used by policy-makers?

              Promote transparency. Models, data and assumptions
            used in formulating policies should be available for interested
            parties to review and critique. This would improve the
            understanding of the validity of the models and how various
            assumptions affect outcomes.

              Peer review is an important step if done properly. A
            third party should choose reviewers and their comments should
            be published but not necessarily their names. Beyond standard
            peer review, someone or some organization should be able to
            replicate the analysis, especially analyses that can have
            significant economic and regulatory impacts.

              Discontinue consensus documents. The push for
            consensus on important science policy issues can mask important
            differences among scientists. Policy-makers are better served
            knowing where there is widespread agreement and where there are
            important disagreements. The ability to publish dissenting
            views in policy documents and NAS reports should be encouraged.

              Establish a ``devil's advocate'' process. For major
            issues like climate change and reports like the IPCC Summary
            for Policy-Makers, some small group should be charged with
            challenging conventional wisdom that when repeated often enough
            is treated as fact. If this were being done routinely on
            climate change matters, it would not be possible to assert that
            the science is settled, that humans are primarily responsible
            for the warming in recent decades or that models are reliable
            for projecting or predicting climate 100 years from now.

              Distinguish between science and analysis. Much of the
            recent criticism is about the inferences drawn from science and
            analysis of options drawn from science. Policy and risk
            assessments are not science and it is inappropriate to use
            disagreement about policy to claim that the integrity of
            science is being violated.

        Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and to present
    these views for your consideration.

                           Biography for Jeff Kueter
    President, George C. Marshall Institute

        Mr. Jeff Kueter works with scientists to help improve the
    understanding and awareness of complex scientific topics to the public,
    the media, and policy-makers. Focused on national security and the
    environmental topics, Mr. Kueter manages the day-to-day operations of
    the George C. Marshall Institute, authoring its policy papers and
    analyses and engaging the public and the policy-making community. He
    received his B.A. in Political Science and Economics at the University
    of Iowa, where he graduated with honors, and an M.A. in Political
    Science and another M.A. in Security Policy Studies and Science &
    Technology Studies, both from George Washington University. He
    previously served as Research Director at the National Coalition for
    Advanced Manufacturing (NACFAM).

                                   Discussion

                       Climate Change: Industry Reaction

        Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Kueter. There should be
    ample time for all the Members of the Committee to ask more
    than one round of questions, and I will begin by recognizing
    myself for five minutes.
        Mr. Rampton, you described in your testimony of the
    prototypical corporate campaign to create doubt, and then you
    heard Dr. McCarthy, I think, talk specifically about the
    campaign with respect to climate change, global warming. How
    well does what Dr. McCarthy described fit the model that you
    described?
        Mr. Rampton. I think it is a very clear example of exactly
    what I have been describing. And it is only one of a number of
    campaigns that have been carried out over the past two decades
    by the various industries. I mean, there was specific talk of
    ExxonMobil, but that is only one company. The oil and gas
    industries in general, the coal industry have funded numerous
    campaigns. One of the first campaigns of this type began in the
    early 1990s funded by groups like the National Coal
    Association, the Western Fuels Association, and it was called
    the Information Council for the Environment, and its goal was
    to, in their words, reposition global warming as a theory, not
    fact.
        A number of the scientists that were recruited for that
    campaign, the so-called ICE Campaign, have later gone on to do
    exactly the same work and make the exact same statements over
    the subsequent two decades. So you see the same figures
    recurring, making the same statements, expressing the same
    skepticism about global warming.
        And the effect is to amplify the views of a relatively
    small number of scientists and make it seem like that is, like
    there is a huge scientific debate going on when, in fact, there
    is not.

                      Climate Change: Scientific Reaction

        Chairman Miller. And Dr. McCarthy, Mr. Rampton in his
    testimony talked about, described the difference between how
    scientists view truth and how public relations view truth.
    Scientists think truth simply exists, and it is for scientists
    to discover and understand, and public relation folks are more
    inclined to think that truth is a little more malleable than
    that and may be created or at least shaped.
        I think we all agree that there is some harm in viewing
    truth that way, but could you describe for us what that harm
    is?
        Dr. McCarthy. Well, first, I think the truth that
    scientists would revert to is also evolving. It is not a
    certainty. In fact, if anyone alleges that we know any of the
    sort of the details that have been referred to here regarding
    climate change with absolute certainty, one has to be very
    suspect of that view.
        I think what we have seen, though, is that the
    representation of a contrary view and particularly that that
    has been supported by industry as we have seen individuals as
    is documented in our report, move from the campaign of the
    tobacco industry directly into the oil and climate change
    industry, have represented as facts information that is not
    supported in the scientific literature. These are often based
    on reports that have not been published, are not in the
    previewed literature, and in some cases have been published but
    discredited by numerous additional publications and yet are
    still put forward as supporting arguments for a position that
    is no longer tenable.
        Chairman Miller. Thank you, Dr. McCarthy. A joke, and I
    guess this is fairly an acquired taste sort of humor, on
    universities is that administrators hate having scientists on
    faculty panels because you never know where they stand. When
    you change the information, they change their positions. Is
    that how you see scientists proceeding and should be
    proceeding?
        Dr. McCarthy. If one were to go back to maybe 15, 20 years
    ago in the climate change discussion, it was very difficult to
    find clear consensus as to whether the Earth was warming in an
    unusual way or not in the 1980s. And then when that was
    established in the early 1990s, it was, in fact, difficult to
    find a clear statement that would come out of any of these
    analyses that this was likely due to human effects.
        As we move beyond the mid '90s, we find that that evidence
    is stronger and stronger. So it is an evolving understanding of
    science, and if anyone could prove this major premise wrong, A,
    that the Earth is warming, B, that is largely warming as a
    result of greenhouse gasses being added to the atmosphere, C,
    that human activities are largely responsible for that, you
    know, you would have Nobel prizes all over the place. This is a
    really well-established body of information now.

                      Climate Change: Government Reaction

        Chairman Miller. So that Mr. Rampton may feel better about
    exceeding his time, I will indulge myself by going a little
    over the five minutes.
        Mr. Maassarani, your report is an assessment of efforts to
    filter the message of federal climate scientists, and you have
    heard Mr. Rampton describe the model of how to view the public
    relations media campaign technique with respect to scientific
    questions. How well does the model he described fit what you
    found in your report?
        Mr. Maassarani. I would simply say that where Mr. Sheldon
    Rampton describes the construction of one end of the scientific
    debate, the one aspect of the truth that happens to fit the
    incentives of industry or whoever is involved, what we have on
    the government side here is the deconstruction of the
    scientific debate coming from mainstream science. So what you
    are doing is you are offering forth scientific views from the
    minority, and then you are suppressing those of the majority.
        Chairman Miller. Mr. Rohrabacher.

                      Funding for Climate Change Skeptics

        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to warn
    you a little bit about telling a joke at a hearing. I attempted
    to make light of an argument at the last hearing dealing with
    global climate change, mentioning in jest that perhaps dinosaur
    farts caused global warming back in the old times, and guess
    what? I was actually making light of the argument that anyone
    could claim that flatulence would change our climate, and it
    was reported widely across the country on numerous, in numerous
    periodicals that that was a very serious statement. That was my
    position. That shows you how dishonest this debate has gotten
    over global warming. Anyone who was at that hearing understood
    very well I was making light of that whole argument on the
    other side, yet I was being presented, it was being presented
    as that was my opinion.
        I think that that is what we are presented time and time
    again when we hear about the consensus that we have human-
    caused global warming. Let me note when William Happer, who is
    now at Princeton University and a member of the National
    Academy of Sciences, was fired from his job as chief scientist
    from the Department of Energy as Mr. Kueter just mentioned. I
    didn't see any of these scientists stepping forward and saying,
    ``My God, Al Gore is trying to skew the scientific research
    that is going on in global warming.'' We didn't hear anything.
    This was a blatant example. Not like the examples that you gave
    where someone's press release was edited so that his views
    would be presented as his own views instead of the views of the
    department in which he worked. No. This was firing a man who
    now is with the National Academy of Sciences and a Professor at
    Princeton University or is it Princeton University did he come
    from? Yes.
        Let me note here again I have a few statements here from
    the Director of Research, Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute,
    Professor of Aeronautical Engineering, Penn State, ``I protest
    against the overwhelming pressure to adhere to the climate
    change dogma.'' Here is Richard Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist,
    Professor of Meteorology at MIT, and if I can find my reading
    glasses I will be able to do this a lot better, but I will
    attempt to read it here.
        Thank you very much. I was talking about the gentleman who,
    from the Royal Dutch Meteorological Association say that he was
    dismissed as Research Director from that meteorological
    association after questioning the scientific under pane of
    global warming, as well as respected Italian professors and
    they name them here, Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza. They
    all disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing
    climate research funding for raising questions. Now, why did
    they lose their funding? They lost their funding because at the
    Department of Energy, William Happer, had been eliminated by Al
    Gore because he was skeptical of the global warming theory.
        Here is a few more for you just to let everybody know about
    the consensus that we are talking about. Timothy Ball, Chairman
    of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and former
    Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg,
    ``Believe it or not, global warming is not due to human
    contributions of carbon dioxide. In fact, it is one of the
    greatest deceptions in the history of scientists, of science,
    and we are wasting time, energy, and trillions of dollars.''
        Then, of course, you have got this gentlemen who, Dr.
    William Gray, one of the most distinguished meteorologists in
    the history of this country, Professor of atmospheric science,
    the University of Colorado, who stated I had, and this is, he
    had said he had been cut off of all of his research grants once
    the Clinton Administration came in because of skepticism of
    global warming. ``I had NOAA money for some 30 years, and then
    when Clinton, the Clinton Administration came in and Gore
    started directing some of the environmental stuff, I was cut
    off. I couldn't get any NOAA money. They turned me down 13, for
    13 straight proposals.''
        Now, these are ample evidence of the type of suppression of
    the other argument that is going on in order for you gentlemen
    and other people to claim there is a consensus. There are
    hundreds of such scientists who are very respected, who have
    been cut off, and why aren't they getting Nobel prizes? Because
    they have been cut off for their research by anybody who even
    suggests the skepticism of global warming. Yet we hear a
    complaint now about people's press releases being edited.
        Let me note here that, just about global warming itself.
    Yeah. Nobody suggests that there isn't some warming going on in
    the planet. Nobody suggests that. There is some kind of warming
    going on in the climate. They used to call it climate change. I
    mean, they used to call it global warming. Now they call it
    climate change in order to cover themselves, but there has been
    a change, and that is because, and over--I saw the charts for
    the people that came back here and talked to us, over 150 years
    there has been a one degree change in the temperature, one
    degree. And I noted at that hearing, this is the one where they
    tried to claim the only quote they used from me was a dinosaur
    flatulent quote, I noted that they had started that one degree
    change in temperature at the very bottom of a 500-year decrease
    in the temperature of the world. It is called the mini-ice age.
    So we have had since the end, the bottom level of the mini-ice
    age we have had a one degree change in temperature. We have had
    many, many changes and cycles in the temperature of the Earth.
    Many of them. And those cycles were caused probably by the same
    reason that there is now another cycle going on. It is called
    solar activity.
        Now, no doubt there is, there has been these cycles, and we
    are in one right now, and solar activity, I believe there are
    many scientists who believe that that could be just as
    important, if not more important, than anything human beings
    are doing.
        And I will leave it with this, and that is if it wasn't
    solar activity, if it was really humankind doing this, why is
    the temperature going up on Mars? NASA just released a study
    suggesting that the polar ice caps are melting on Mars. Is that
    because of all the humanlike activity going on on Mars? I don't
    think so.
        So I think this debate, Mr. Chairman, it is an important
    debate, and but we do not need to dismiss someone's arguments,
    just saying we have a consensus, so instead, what we are going
    to do is not even listen to a scientist who is suggesting that
    there is an argument against the positions and the ``facts''
    that are being presented to us that justify an analysis that
    comes up that global warming is caused by human beings. And
    again, listen, I consider myself open minded in this. I have an
    opinion, a strong opinion, but I am never going to tell
    someone, I am not going to listen to your argument because I
    have a consensus of people I have talked to, and I am not even
    going to actually confront your arguments.
        That is what we have here today, Mr. Chairman. We have a
    dismissal of other people's arguments. We have blaming Exxon
    for it, and I am very happy to see our young people here
    wearing their Exxon shirts, and they are participating in the
    system, and I applaud you for that. And there are certainly big
    corporations that do manipulate people and try to for their own
    purposes. There are other interest groups that manipulate
    people as well. A lot of interest groups in this country that
    manipulate people as well
        With that said, I thank you for the hearing because I think
    this is good for the debate.
        Chairman Miller. Well, Mr. Rohrabacher, you have a second
    round of questions and perhaps something you say in the second
    round might end in a question mark. And Mr. Rohrabacher, I will
    not promise you that I will avoid any and all jokes in the
    conduct of these hearings, but I will avoid jokes about
    flatulence.
        Mr. Baird.

                         Scientists as Policy Advisors

        Mr. Baird. I thank the Chair. I want to begin by thanking
    the panelists, and I think this is really not just about
    climate change. I believe the evidence on climate change is
    quite compelling. I think the international report suggests
    that it is. What this hearing is really about is the distortion
    of science, and my belief, and I think the evidence is
    compelling, that this Administration has put unprecedented and
    undue stress, or really censorship, on researchers throughout
    federal agencies. And I applaud the individuals for raising
    this. I think that is repugnant and contraindicated in terms of
    our trying to understand issues.
        So I share the broad concern about the distortion of
    scientific policy, one manifestation of which may be the global
    warming debate, but there are many, many others, including
    reproductive health, how federal advisory committees are
    structured, how is on them, how is off, et cetera, and this
    committee should look into that.
        Having said that, I also want to say that I think, Mr.
    Rampton, your points about the power given to scientists cut
    both ways. I am familiar with cases where a number of
    scientists have signed onto letters saying they hold a
    position, you know, so the PR campaign is X number of
    ``distinguished scientists'' have signed a letter about, fill
    in the blank. And at least some of those cases I am quite
    confident that the ``distinguished scientists'' have not ever
    read the particular study they are signing onto, but they are
    lending their weight to it. And this happens on both the left
    and the right, and again, as I stated at the outset, I think it
    is wrong if it happens on either side, because I think
    scientists on all sides needs to hold themselves to a higher
    standard.
        So one of my questions would be are there standards within
    the scientific community about what one must do before one
    signs onto some such letter? In other words, read the studies
    yourself, look at the data from the particular studies, et
    cetera, or can one just sign on and say I hold a doctorate or a
    Master's degree in some form of science. Therefore, I am
    qualified to comment on a particular issue. And I will just put
    this out to the panelists.
        Mr. Rampton. I think the short answer to the question of
    whether there those standards would be no. I mean, in fact,
    there are people who claim, speak on matters of science who
    have, you know, law degrees or there is a fellow named Stephen
    Malloy, who has a Master's degree in biostatistics and is very
    prominent and outspoken about the problem of what he calls junk
    science, formerly funded by the tobacco industry. In fact,
    very, until recently, and he doesn't disclose his current
    funding information. So in terms of credentials, as a scientist
    he has really none, and yet he is often cited as an authority
    on matters of what is and is not good science.
        Mr. Baird. Mr. Rampton, would you say, would you suggest,
    are you equally concerned if people signing onto letters on
    either side of an issue or not, versed in the issue that they
    are signing onto?
        Mr. Rampton. Well, I think a scientist is a citizen like
    anyone else and has the right to express his or her opinion. I
    think that when scientists lend the credibility of their
    expertise to something, they ought to be speaking on the matter
    where, in fact, they are experts, where they actually have
    degrees in that particular field. And you do have a common
    problem that I think scientists tend to assume that because
    they have rigorous training in some field, that their intellect
    is sufficient to enable them to weigh in on all sorts of other
    areas where they are not qualified. And you have any number of
    cases where scientists have made outright fools of themselves
    by weighing in on areas where they are not, in fact, expert.
        So I think that when a scientist speaks outside his or her
    field of expertise, their voice should be treated as simply the
    voice of another citizen. Does that answer your question?
        Mr. Baird. Yes. To some degree. I will follow up, and Dr.
    McCarthy, first of all, as a person who first became a member
    myself of AAAS some 30 years or so ago now, I suppose, I
    congratulate you on your election. I have great respect for the
    institution.
        I also have some concerns about cases I am intimately
    familiar with where Science Magazine rushed publications into
    press in order to influence public policy, and I think without
    due peer review. Now, I am not saying you did it because you
    were pressured by some outside group, et cetera, but I do think
    in this particular case it was an unfortunate act and did not
    reflect the highest standards of either the Association or the
    journal of Science itself.
        And I guess I would just ask your comments about that. If
    there is a matter of public policy of some significant import,
    should that lead a journal to rush something into press without
    adequate peer review, or would one not want to say precisely
    because a matter of policy is being influenced we should
    exercise particular attention to make sure that the peer review
    is thorough and we get the data right?
        Dr. McCarthy. Well, there is only one obvious answer to
    that, of course. An organization like the AAAS should always be
    concerned about its reputation. I am not familiar with the
    incident that you have alluded to, but it sounds as if that is
    one in which you thought their reputation was not well served,
    and based on your representation I have to agree.
        But let me give another example. Three years ago now the
    Union of Concerned Scientists, first becoming aware of some of
    the abuses of our federal agencies with regard to science,
    issued a report on restoring the integrity of scientific
    integrity. And that is, again, something that the Union worked
    a great deal to make sure was a very crisp document, and the
    initial 60 people to sign that were not just random people. To
    see whether this really was a strong statement, to see whether
    it resonated, individuals who were winners of the national
    medal of science, former advisors of Presidents of the United
    States of America, all the way back to President Eisenhower,
    were asked to look at this statement. Heads of major research
    institutions and to the best of my knowledge no one who looked
    at it said, I won't sign it because it is wrong or because I
    think you have misrepresented this. Some people said I can't
    sign it because it would put my institution at stake. I am that
    concerned. But here is an example of where there was a very
    careful effort made to insure that this was set at the highest
    level, of people who could say, you know what? This happens all
    the time. Let me tell you about what happened in 1979, let me
    tell you about 1963. And we didn't get that. So then when you
    go through that process, you can be confident that the
    integrity of the institution, the reputation of the institution
    is not going to be harmed by this.
        But the case you mentioned I would certainly agree. Any
    effort to rush something without the process that is the
    tradition of that scientific body would be reckless and
    irresponsible.
        Mr. Baird. I will chat with you separately about that, but
    I also commend you for that report. We actually held rump
    hearings, and I say rump hearings because the then Chair of the
    Committee would not allow us to have official hearings on that
    very issue that your report concerned.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Baird. Mr. Rothman.

                                Recommendations

        Mr. Rothman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen,
    for your work and for your appearance today.
        I think I have detected a consensus, which is that everyone
    agrees there have been abuses of scientists in the employ of
    the Federal Government by members of the Federal Government. Is
    that a fair statement of one of the things you can agree on?
    And if so, what do you each recommend as ways to prevent that
    from happening again?
        Let us start from my right. Mr. Kueter.
        Mr. Kueter. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on
    that subject, sir. In my prepared remarks I have a set of
    recommendations that the Institute has vetted to get at these
    issues that you have described.
        The first that we put forward is the promotion of
    transparency, and it goes to an issue that Mr. Baird just
    mentioned. The need to have data that is used in making federal
    decisions brought forward for critical analyses and audits is
    essential in order to understand the veracity of the claims
    that are being made. To date that is a difficult process to get
    through.
        Mr. Rothman. So what is the fix?
        Mr. Kueter. Require that the peer-reviewed studies that are
    being used to guide your decisions have their data archived and
    be open for scrutiny and analysis by independent researchers.
    It would be our recommendation that you establish a devil's
    advocate's process, similar to what the DOD uses with its red
    team process or its team B processes, where you bring in a set
    of folks that don't necessarily agree with the consensus on a
    particular issue and ask them to scrub that issue thoroughly
    and report back to the Congress or a particular committee with
    their findings. At that point then you would have probably two
    very different sets of arguments that would be put forward and
    perspectives on a particular issue. Then you would understand
    the parameters----
        Mr. Rothman. Okay.
        Mr. Kueter.--and distribution of----
        Mr. Rothman. I appreciate those recommendations, and my
    time is limited, and I will read those and recommend the staff
    read them as well.
        I am more concerned about the, that just brings more
    information in different points of view, which is great and
    very helpful, but I heard the concern being over the twisting
    of scientific opinion or the censoring of scientific opinion or
    the elimination of a point of view from the Administration. So
    how would, could we have some comments on how to avoid that,
    the censorship and the elimination of these differing points of
    view? This brings in other points of view as well. Mr. Kueter.
    Mr. Maassarani.
        Mr. Maassarani. If I may. Thank you. We have an extensive
    list in the report itself. I will go over a couple that I think
    are particularly important.
        One is to implement clear and transparent media policies at
    the agencies where, these can require prior notification and a
    summary of any media interactions that have occurred but that
    eliminate the need for required, mandatory, pre-approval,
    monitoring, routing of media requests from one scientist to
    another, as well as drafting of anticipated questions and
    answers by the scientists prior to the interviews. That would
    be one step.
        I will mention one more real quick, and that is to reaffirm
    and to put into the policies at these agencies the personal
    views exception. Basically, we feel that insofar as agencies
    have the right to control the kind of message that is going to
    be projected on their behalf, especially on policy matters,
    that doesn't mean that it forecloses a scientist's
    constitutional right to speak. In those instances scientists
    need to know that they can speak out----
        Mr. Rothman. Right.
        Mr. Maassarani.--on policy matters.
        Mr. Rothman. The question is from a federal office building
    with federal resources, et cetera. Those I would think are
    other issues, but for allowing that right of a citizen.
        Mr. Maassarani. Well, as long as they qualify the statement
    that they are saying this on their own, as their own private
    view.
        Mr. Rothman. And I apologize for the brevity of the time.
        Mr. Maassarani. No problem.
        Mr. Rothman. Dr. McCarthy.
        Dr. McCarthy. I am not sure you were here, Congressman
    Rothman, when I mentioned I congratulate the House on its
    passage of the whistleblower protection measure and hope that
    the Senate follows your lead. That would be one very important
    measure.
        Another, following up on the earlier remarks, would be to
    insure that when there is an interaction between a public
    relations staff and a scientist, the scientist has the
    opportunity for final say in that document. And if changes have
    been suggested which actually change the apparent meaning of
    the findings of the scientist, then the scientist should be
    able to reject them.
        Mr. Rothman. Do you think this should be as a matter of
    federal law, or do you think there should be, these procedures
    of an Administration to best practices, if you will?
        Dr. McCarthy. I leave that to you, you wise people.
        Mr. Rothman. Yeah.
        Dr. McCarthy. I would just like to make certain that in
    whatever way this can be guaranteed to federal scientists.
        Mr. Rothman. May I ask Mr. Rampton to comment, Mr.
    Chairman?
        Mr. Rampton. Well, I just mention that medical journals
    have dealt with a fairly similar problem, which is that, you
    know, a number of privately-funded medical researchers in the
    past have run into the situation where as a condition for, you
    know, funding of their research by some, for example,
    pharmaceutical company, there is a stipulation that the company
    owns the right to prior approval of publication. And some of
    the top medical journals have adopted a policy which is that
    they will not publish research in their journals unless the
    scientist who has gotten funding has been guaranteed the right
    to publish regardless of what he finds.
        And I think similar provisions by the Government with
    regard to Government funds to scientists makes sense that
    whatever scientists finds ought to be, you know, there should
    not be someone, there ought to be a firewall of protection so
    that the scientists at the moment of having something to
    publish or findings to announce is guaranteed that regardless
    of what is found that there will be freedom to publish it.
        Mr. Rothman. Mr. Chairman.

                   Administration Position on Climate Change

        Chairman Miller. Thank you, Mr. Rothman. Like Mr. Rothman,
    I think I will try to make sure there is some consensus among
    the panel on some topics at least.
        It has been at least a generation since there has been any
    serious scientific question about the adverse health
    consequences of smoking. The documents that we have discovered
    from the tobacco industry in litigation show that the tobacco
    industry, in fact, knew before federal researchers did of the
    adverse health consequences because of their own research.
    Their own research showed the damaging health affects of
    smoking, but they simply paid scientists to put their name on
    documents that the industry itself had drafted.
        Do any of you disagree that that is morally blameworthy
    conduct? Does anyone wish to defend that kind of conduct? Now,
    I know there is some question about whether that is happening
    now and who is doing it, but as a general matter does anyone
    wish to defend that kind of conduct?
        There has been a puzzling disagreement going back to where
    there is not consensus within the Bush Administration. We have
    heard from Mr. Maassarani and from Dr. McCarthy that there has
    been an effort by the Bush Administration to control what
    federal scientists say about global warming. We have heard that
    Phil Cooney, who is not a scientist but worked at the Council
    for Environmental Quality, excuse me, worked at the American
    Petroleum Institute and has gone from there to work for
    ExxonMobil, edited climate change reports behind the scenes to
    make the reports much more equivocal than what the scientists
    who had written them initially, what the scientist draft
    expressed. But just a month ago Dr. William Brennan, not the
    Supreme Court Justice, but a NOAA official and acting director
    of the Climate Change Science Program testified before the
    Senate that the Bush Administration accepted and had always
    accepted the 2001, National Academy of Science report on
    climate change science, that greenhouse gasses are accumulating
    in the Earth's atmosphere, and are the result of human
    activities. He said that the Bush Administration accepted the
    latest report of the IPCC and had never held a different
    position.
        Mr. Maassarani, what are we to believe?
        Mr. Maassarani. Sorry I can't answer that. I think to some
    extent with the IPCC report having come out it is going to be
    more and more difficult to support the proposition that the
    Bush Administration held earlier, that there is no connections
    or that global warming isn't happening. So no matter how much
    you would want to resist it anyway, but I think perhaps that is
    what we are seeing here. I am not sure if what you are trying
    to get at, I am not sure it means that the Bush Administration
    is listening to its scientists more than it was before. I would
    hope so.
        Chairman Miller. Dr. McCarthy.
        Dr. McCarthy. It is a puzzle. In the spring of 2001, when
    President Bush announced that he would no longer honor his
    campaign position to regulate carbon dioxide emissions released
    to the atmosphere, it came just a couple of months after the
    third assessment report of the IPCC. At that time Mr. Bush
    asked the National Academy of Sciences to take a look at the
    IPCC report, and you have just given us the bottom line of the
    National Academy conclusion. And many of us were very hopeful
    at that time that now we would begin to see action taken.
    Again, for those who aren't aware, the U.S. delegation to the
    IPCC proceedings is formed by the State Department. It includes
    high ranking scientists from our science agencies, but it
    really is, it really does represent the views of our Department
    of State in all those deliberations.
        So the fact that beneath the radar the sort of actions that
    this report and others have managed to reveal suggest that even
    though things were being said which sounded as if the
    Administration was not challenging the science, at the level in
    which the work was being done, that, in fact, was a very
    different matter.
        Mr. Maassarani. Can I just add something to that? I just
    want to----
        Chairman Miller. Mr. Maassarani.
        Mr. Maassarani.--make clear that as far as we know the U.S.
    National Assessment still is not referenced on the websites. It
    is still, any reference or mention to it still seems to be
    suppressed as it was when it first came out. So certainly that
    hasn't happened.
        Chairman Miller. Mr. Rohrabacher, do you wish to complete
    the question you began earlier?

                            Climate Change Skeptics

        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Well, let me just
    note that the Government Accountability Project's report, while
    having the same sort of tone that we have heard here today and
    also included I would say the innuendos that we have heard
    today, also lacked the specific charges that we haven't heard
    here today as well. I mean, it is one thing to imply that there
    are this sort of stifling going on and when the report is said,
    and I quote, ``It found no incidence of direct interference in
    climate change research, as well as the investigation by the
    Government Accountability Project has uncovered no concrete
    evidence that political actors are directly and willfully
    interfering with this fundamental aspect of scientific work.''
        And now, we can make innuendos all we want, and we can
    ignore everything that the other side does that is very blatant
    in suppressing this argument, like the firing of the lead
    scientist at the Department of Energy. It is very easy for
    someone who is a political activist or politically oriented who
    has got some scientific credentials or sometimes doesn't have
    scientific credentials but is speaking as if he or she does, to
    sort of imply that there is some sort of suppression going on
    when obviously, as I say, examples and I gave four earlier on,
    of blatant examples of where people were losing contracts for
    their position as being skeptical of global warming, but for
    example, we have NASA, James Hanson and you are aware of this.
    Maybe perhaps one of the people you are talking about in your
    report was Mr. Hanson who complained that his press releases
    were being manipulated or his association with the press was in
    some way being controlled. Last week at a hearing on the Senate
    side acknowledged that he had been interviewed 14,000 times,
    14,000 interviews on global warming. Now, someone who is
    capable of having that many interviews, let us just, let us say
    there was only a thousand. Okay. Maybe it wasn't, this is only
    what I saw in the press. This is what I saw as a question
    during the interviews over there, but let us say it was just
    1,000. That doesn't indicate that there is some suppression
    going on. It may indicate there is a guy over at NASA who
    thinks his opinions are worth more than anybody else's opinion
    on this, and maybe he was presenting it in a way that was
    perceived as speaking for NASA.
        Now, there is every right for the people that work at NASA
    to make sure that someone who disagrees with them is not
    presenting himself or herself as spokesman for NASA instead of
    this is my opinion on what I have found and what I believe to
    be true on this issue.
        So that is number one. And I would like to remind everybody
    about when people talk about, you know, coming in and not
    having the right kind of science to back up charges and things
    like that. You know, I have been here longer than I think
    anybody in this room, and I will tell you the first incident
    that I ever had like this, I was, I have been a Member of the
    Science Committee for 19 years now, and my very first year Al
    Gore came right there and sat right there.
        Now, I was behind him a few days ago and listening to him,
    and it may surprise some of you, but I agreed with about half
    of what Al Gore had to say, and that is a pretty good consensus
    considering that, you know, I don't agree with the global
    warming aspect, but trying to clean up the pollution, make us
    energy self-sufficient. Man, I think that some of his ideas
    were right on, and I am planning to try to work with my fellow
    Republicans to work on that.
        But my first year Al Gore came there and sat right where
    you are, and he had, again, he had all the camera crews out so
    that all the young people in the world could see him pounding
    on the desk, and he was demanding that the former President
    Bush, who was President then, declare an ozone emergency. Do
    any of you remember that incident? Do you remember that at all?
    Okay. That was very clear to me, because that was my first year
    as a Congressman. Do you know what happened? He was demanding
    that the President declare an ozone emergency for the northeast
    of the United States, which would have cost thousands of jobs
    to add billions of dollars of disruption to our economy, and
    guess what? A week later they found out that it was a
    misreading of some instruments on one piper cub airplane by
    some researcher from one university that misread the
    instruments.
        Now, what I see here is when we are making charges like,
    which are monumental to our economy, billions of dollars worth
    of outcome, these kids lives are not going to be better if we
    end up trying to save the climate rather than clean the air or
    rather than making us energy self-sufficient, because we get,
    you know, because we get focused on a wrong goal because people
    are trying to claim there is an ozone emergency when there
    isn't one.
        So I will end it with a question so anybody can--is there
    or are there or are there not, you have stated over and over
    again, this consensus in order to dismiss any real discussion
    of global warming I keep hearing the consensus, you know,
    rather than confronting the arguments, I get in two arguments
    today, global warming is happening on Mars. We also mentioned
    how they began their research and the one degree temperature
    rise started at the bottom level. Two big, you know, issues
    there with global warming. Instead of them confronting
    arguments, you are saying that a consensus isn't there. Do you
    agree that there are a significant number of scientists with
    very good credentials who are not part of this so-called
    consensus, who have ample reason and are legitimately offering
    some skepticism of global warming? Or is this something, again,
    dismiss it?
        Chairman Miller. Actually, the time limit applies to the
    question and the answer, and we are now gloriously past the
    time, but does any of you have a very brief answer, and or can
    you provide a more complete answer in writing? A very brief
    answer. Dr. McCarthy.
        Dr. McCarthy. I can try. Certainly there is a range of
    opinions on all these issues, and this is what the IPCC is all
    about. It is in distilling where the best science is, and I
    must tell you that that is a very agonizing process, and it has
    the transparency that Mr. Kueter was referring to earlier.
    Everything is documented. You can go back and find all those
    reviews. Everything is there to be examined, and it is a very
    conservative process. Could it be the sun? Well, you can ask
    that question. It is in energetics. You can ask that question.
    How much is the solar variability changing over time? How much
    is the insulation of the atmosphere changing? How do they
    compare?
        This can all be done and is being done, and it turns out
    that the solar variability as best estimated, we only measure
    precisely back to 1980, but with sun records going back for the
    last 100 years, is about one-tenth, it is about plus or minus
    two-tenths of a watt per square meter, about one-tenth the two
    watts per square meter that we have now accumulated as
    insulation in the atmosphere.
        So there is no scientific paper that would allow you to say
    that you can test that theory and find anything like the signal
    for solar variability that you find for the insulation effect,
    and that is the way this science proceeds. If anyone could
    write that paper and showed how the solar variability could
    affect this change, then it would be in these reports.
        Chairman Miller. Mr. Kueter, can you answer in a sentence
    that Hemmingway might have written instead of James Joyce?
        Mr. Kueter. I would refer the Members to the Executive
    Summary of Working Group I, Chapter 12 of the Third Assessment
    Report of the IPCC, which documents a number of ongoing and
    outstanding uncertainties in the state of science. That similar
    list was reproduced in the Fourth Assessment released just two
    months ago. The importance of those uncertainties is documented
    in the National Research Council's 2001 report that was
    previously referenced. I would say that is the subject of the
    debate and ought to be the focus of our future discussions
    about climate change.
        Chairman Miller. Mr. Maassarani, a Hemmingway sentence.
        Mr. Maassarani. If I may just briefly confront two
    statements made by Mr. Rohrabacher. The first was in an earlier
    statement about press releases being edited to reflect the sole
    opinion. There is nothing in our report or investigations that
    says that. It says press releases were edited to downplay or
    minimize their scientific significance.
        The other thing, 14,000 interviews I believe is a
    misstatement as well. Fourteen thousand Google hits I think was
    at issue there, and I can say three things on that subject.
    First, our studies have found that media interactions are
    virtually uninhibited when it comes to local, foreign, or
    technical news journals. The restrictions are for major
    outlets.
        Second, the comment doesn't specify what time period we are
    talking about for Hanson to talk. We have seen these problems
    as problems emerging in the recent past.
        And lastly, it is our belief that one incident of
    interference based on political motivations is unacceptable.
    Thank you.

                      Freedom of Information Act Requests

        Chairman Miller. I need to excuse myself, I have votes in
    another committee beginning now, but, and I will turn the gavel
    over to Mr. Rothman in just a moment. But Mr. Maassarani,
    before I leave, Mr. Rohrabacher pointed out gaps in your
    report, instances in your report where he said you had no
    evidence. I admired how far your report was able to go based on
    FOIA requests. My own experience in FOIA requests as a Member
    of Congress, not as a Chairman of the Investigations and
    Oversight Committee, was how limited a FOIA request was. The
    limitation or the exception for pre-decisional documents really
    meant all the good stuff was not really subject to a FOIA
    request, you know, why the decision was really made.
        What kinds of obstacles did you find in your research using
    FOIA requests, and would you work with our staff if you assumed
    that we may, we have more tools in our toolbox than FOIA
    requests?
        Mr. Maassarani. Certainly. The obstacles include the
    following. We FOIA'd three agencies: NASA, NOAA, and the EPA.
    It was a fairly involved request, asking for a number of things
    that covered anything related to media policies or guidelines
    as one of the points. NASA got back to us with their media
    policy, and that is it. It was a nine-page NASA response. EPA
    was unresponsive to our request. They had nothing regarding,
    relating to media, and you can see some of the language of our
    FOIA in the report. There is, it is beyond me to imagine how
    they would not have a single record on what we requested.
        Other irregularities, at NOAA, for example, though they got
    us a good load of FOIA documents. We had scientists directly
    send us some of the FOIA material they were giving over to the
    FOIA office, and that never made it through the official FOIA
    process, upwards of hundreds of pages of documents.
        So and lastly, on a legal point, the FOIA, the redactions
    that were made and the withheld documents, they weren't
    actually justified under any of the FOIA, under the law of the
    FOIA, so we didn't know whether they were pre-decisional or
    what the basis was.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Miller. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Baird for
    questions, and if Mr. Rothman will now assume the gavel.

                          Science Publishing Concerns

        Mr. Baird. I thank the Chair, and I want to pose two
    ethical questions, and I will preface this by not only do I
    have a doctorate in a scientific field, clinical psychology,
    specialized in neuropsych, but I used to teach the statistics
    and research methods course and used to teach the history of
    science and scientific ethics, and so I know a little about
    Popper and Kuhn and Feynman and some of the other folks.
        And let me just pose a question to my dear friend from
    California, Mr. Rohrabacher, and then the converse question to
    the panel. And I will ask my friend from California the
    following question, and then I am going to propose the converse
    to the panel, because I think there are some problems on both
    sides.
        For the gentleman from California, what do you think the
    ethical position should be if you are a scientist who in your
    best judgment has objectively analyzed the data and they lead
    you to one conclusion. As best you understand it from the data,
    and a supervisor tells you for political reasons because your
    data don't lend credence to an official position, that you
    can't publish that. So you think you have something to offer to
    the debate, and a political person, and I am going to hold that
    question. I will ask the gentleman to respond.
        Let me do the converse, however. Mr. McCarthy commented and
    others the passage of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and one
    of the amendments of that, which I voted for but with some
    reservation, said basically that it is not allowable for a
    supervisor to prevent something from being published after it
    has been accepted in a peer review journal.
        Let us suppose you are a supervisor with ultimate
    responsibility for the scientific credibility of what comes
    from your shop. Someone within your shop sends, unbeknownst to
    you, a publication to a peer review journal, which accepts it.
    You learn about the acceptance post-talk and then say, wait a
    second, I haven't had a chance to review this document, and
    upon reviewing it, I find significant flaws in the data, but
    the Congress of the United States has now passed a law that
    says you can't withhold the publication of a study that you
    believe to be flawed on its scientific merits. And I know of a
    case where that happened, by the way.
        So the gentleman from California and then the panel if we
    may.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. First of all, maybe you could give me
    three examples of where that has happened. I have given you
    four or five examples of how it happened blatantly in the last
    Administration and how there are numbers of scientists who
    claimed to have been frozen out of grants because they were----
        Mr. Baird. Well, hypothetically. I know of examples where
    it has happened.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Well, I need three examples, and I
    would like for the panel to come up with three examples for me
    because----
        Mr. Baird. Let us suppose it happened.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. What a scientist's responsibility is, the
    same as a journalist, you know, I am a professional journalist.
    That is what I did for a living. I was a writer. I was not a
    lawyer, which lawyers can justify just about anything, but----
        Mr. Baird. But journalists are not biased. We know that.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No. Journalists--correct. Okay. Here is
    the answer. If a scientist has done his, has done research, has
    come to a conclusion, he should express that in any way that he
    can as what he believes with his credentials, understanding
    there are other scientists who disagree with him. This is not
    where one claims I have discovered truth, and all of a sudden
    everybody else has to shut up. And what we have got here is you
    have some people who are very strong political positions as
    well as being scientists.
        Mr. Baird. But let me reclaim just to ask this question.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Sure.
        Mr. Baird. What if your supervisor says you cannot publish
    your data so that it can enter the marketplace of ideas and
    debate? What is your----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, obviously, I believe that anything
    that has, as you say, gone through the peer review process, no
    one should prevent things from being discussed. In fact, I have
    just, I am the strong advocate of having everything discussed,
    and I think there has been much more censorship on the other
    side of this issue than the one you are getting at. If you can
    give me some examples of that, I will be happy to sign on with
    you and say I am very concerned about this scientist, this
    scientist, and this scientist who are permitted to publish.
    Now----
        Mr. Baird. Well, let me return if I may to the panel to
    hear the converse.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. What element of it, to answer your
    question, the thing is----
        Mr. Rothman. Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
        Mr. Rothman. It is Mr. Baird's, Dr. Baird's time.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me----
        Mr. Rothman. It is Dr. Baird's time.
        Mr. Baird. You and I--Dana, we will have time. We will get
    together.
        Mr. Rothman. It is Dr. Baird's time.
        Mr. Baird. I will give you 30 seconds.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. No. Even five seconds. It is just
    so, we are not talking about whether or not----
        Mr. Baird. You have 26 seconds.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Hold on now. So we are basically saying
    that he wasn't allowed to publish in the name of--you can't as
    a scientist publish in the name of NASA, but you can publish.
    NASA doesn't have to say we are publishing this as our opinion.
        Mr. Baird. I am aware of case--I will reclaim my time and
    tell you I am aware of cases where people were told they could
    not put their name on a study, period, because they were within
    the employ of a federal agency, even if the study was published
    not under the official aegis of the agency but merely the fact
    that you were employed by that agency extracted your name from
    publication. I am personally aware of that case.
        About the reverse where the moral conundrum, ethical
    conundrum applies to the supervisor who recognizes flawed data
    but now the Congress has put that person in a position, if we
    pass this law into law, that they can't retract the study
    before it becomes published without running into some
    significant problems.
        Dr. McCarthy. There are many laboratories in which it is
    the procedure for all staff to have their reports, their
    professional papers reviewed within the laboratory. That
    happens in research in universities, happens in research
    centers all over. So it is not unusual.
        If even, if without that, or if one attempted to go around
    that or even if that process were followed and the report were
    published, peer reviewed and published, and were found to have
    errors, then, of course, it is incumbent upon anyone who
    discovers those errors to call attention to them with letters
    to the editor or perhaps retractions of the paper. I think one
    distinction to be made here, though, is that you are talking
    about a case in which the results are clearly derived from
    research. They are, you mentioned data, and I think it is
    somewhat different from what we have seen in many of the cases
    that have been discussed here, in which scientists are making
    statements which are judged by people within the Administration
    to have policy implications. And for that reason they have run
    into difficulty.
        Mr. Baird. Yeah. My problem is if somebody's putting
    forward data that will lead to policy implications, it relates
    to the aforementioned issue, which we will talk about
    separately, but and we have put, in Congress, the supervisor in
    an untenable position where they can't say, this shouldn't go
    to press because it is flawed because one it has been accepted
    for publication, under the amendment we passed last week in
    this Congress----
        Dr. McCarthy. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Baird.--we put those supervisor, I think, in an
    unethical position, and I intend to address this before it goes
    to conference.
        Dr. McCarthy. Well, if it is accepted for publication, let
    us say in a peer review journal, because of oversight in the
    review process, and that happens, as you know, all the time,
    then there are corrective measures. There are letters to the
    editor, there are subsequent papers.
        Mr. Baird. Sure, but you know that is like a retraction in
    journalism. You know once the study is published, it gets
    quoted 100,000 times. The retractions are minimal, and I will
    tell you that some journals substantially restrict and put much
    greater scrutiny on the retractions, I know this personally,
    than they do on the initial publication.
        Dr. McCarthy. Certainly retractions but I think letters are
    often a very powerful way of dealing with that.
        Mr. Rothman. I thank the gentleman. I am going to take five
    minutes for questions.

                        Political Pressure on Scientists

        Can the panel give me at least three examples of the kind
    of censorship or problems in this Administration that our
    colleague from California suggests has taken or took place
    under the previous Administration?
        Mr. Maassarani. If I understand correctly, Mr. Rohrabacher
    was referring to grant decisions allowing funding of certain
    research proposals, as well as more recently he talked about,
    or the question that was under debate now, was whether there
    was a publication that had been----
        Mr. Rothman. No, no, no. Just censorship----
        Mr. Maassarani. Okay.
        Mr. Rothman.--or undue influence, the kind of things you
    were talking about in general terms in each of your respective
    testimonies. At least three of you.
        Mr. Maassarani. Sure. I will give you an anecdote that
    comes from a confidential source of one of the agencies. Just
    find my notes real quick.
        This was a person that was positioned in the public affairs
    office of the agency. The predecessor for this person had been
    begged to resign from this, to be reassigned from this position
    to another one because of the pressure that was associated with
    the position. Basically they found themselves between the
    political appointees within the public affairs office and the
    scientists themselves and the information they were trying to
    get out. This person was told regarding one of the scientists,
    you make him be quiet. Get that guy to stop speaking to the
    public. It is your job. I cannot believe you cannot control
    that person. This person has, and I quote, was summoned to
    their political appointee's supervisor's office at times where
    their discussion would take place behind closed doors and
    involved White House offices such as the Office of Science and
    Technology Policy.
        This person was to inform the superiors of any interview
    requests from major news outlets that concerned climate change,
    and those would be rerouted through----
        Mr. Rothman. That is one individual. Do we have any other
    examples that either, anyone wishes to speak about?
        Dr. McCarthy. I can refer to examples which are in the
    testimony from our report, Atmospheric Pressure, in which 21
    percent of the respondents, they personally experienced
    pressure to eliminate the words, climate change or global
    warming or other similar terms from a variety of
    communications. Fifteen percent of the respondents said they
    personally experienced changes or edits during review that
    changed the meaning of scientific findings, and then in all 58
    percent of the scientists said they had personally experienced
    at least one incident of some form of interference within the
    last five years, a total of 435 incidents of political
    interference. And these are documented in our report.
        Mr. Rothman. Mr. Rampton, do you have any comment on this
    or----
        Mr. Rampton. I think I will pass if that is okay.
        Mr. Rothman. Okay. And Mr. Kueter, since I see this hearing
    is among other things but most importantly what role the
    Congress should take in trying to prevent intimidation,
    censorship of scientists within the Federal Government by
    members of the Federal Government, do you have any examples
    about any conduct during this Administration that you found
    were examples of censorship on one, cutting one way or the
    other?
        Mr. Kueter. We haven't analyzed the behavior of this
    particular Administration, but the book that I referenced in my
    testimony, Politicizing Science, documents at least four
    different cases of where there has been evidence of selective
    use of results over misinterpretation of those findings or
    blatant interference in the conduct of experiments and in the
    behavior of past Administrations.
        Mr. Rothman. Okay. So for the last seven years, you haven't
    studied the actions of what has gone on in our Federal
    Government for the last six years and change?
        Mr. Kueter. Not in terms of trying to conduct the kinds of
    surveys that these gentlemen are talking about.
        Mr. Rothman. Okay. So you are more of a historian then. You
    can tell us what happened in the last Administration but not
    the last six years?
        Mr. Kueter. I am a public policy analyst. That is, our role
    is to be----
        Mr. Rothman. Okay.
        Mr. Kueter.--involved in the contemporary debate. We have
    published this book, though that did take a more historical
    view of the questions that you raised.
        Mr. Rothman. Fair enough. I am going to save my 14 seconds
    unless there is another comment, Mr. Maassarani.
        Mr. Maassarani. I just wanted to say that our report is
    replete with the kind of examples that you are asking for.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rothman. I am now going to recognize our colleague and
    friend from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, for five minutes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much. I am dismayed
    that when we ask you for specific examples that you couldn't
    come up with any. I mean, you are coming up with an unnamed
    source and coming up--give me a couple names out of there and
    say Dr. so and so said that on this occasion I had a scientific
    study that I was not permitted to publish or was not permitted
    to submit for people to look at. And give me the examples, and
    I am ready to take a look. Give me three examples. If you
    couldn't do it just a minute ago, send them to my office. I
    will be happy to examine it. The answers you gave were,
    obviously were not satisfactory.
        Mr. Rothman. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Sure. Sure.
        Mr. Rothman. When the panelists said that 21 percent and
    three out of five responded that they experienced some
    censorship or pressure to change their findings or their
    findings were changed without prior notice, does the gentleman
    say that, deny that those findings or reports are correct?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah, I do, because I will suggest to you
    that when you take polls among people, how you ask a question
    and then how you analyze the answer makes all the difference in
    the world. And whether or not that person, for example, if
    someone says, do you think that there should be more research
    money on global warming, and the scientist says, why, yes, I
    do, and I think it is really discriminatory against our group
    of people who are responsible for researching global warming,
    the fact that they don't have a higher budget. Well, everybody
    wants a higher budget, and that analysis, giving him as an
    example, as see, here is a guy who is repressed. Well, this may
    be what we are having here, but I will be very happy, by the
    way, please submit to me, and I will give you a chance to get
    me the exact, if you have a specific example, give me three
    specific examples. I will be open-minded about it. And, again,
    I agree with my friend, this should be an open debate. My major
    argument today is not that we in some way should overlook if
    there has been some suppression of the argument on, by this
    Administration, we should overlook that. I would never suggest
    that. I am suggesting that we have suppression of this debate
    on the other side.
        And, again, if you have evidence that they are doing
    something wrong, specifically, rather than giving me some
    polling or some unnamed source who can say anything because he
    is anonymous, okay. Go right ahead. If you got some examples, I
    will, write them down.
        Mr. Maassarani. Sure. Let me just say that they are unnamed
    for a reason, and a number of our sources are unnamed, and
    unfortunately, I can't disclose their----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, the point is that we have been, like
    the Administration has been here seven years or six years now
    total, and if there were people who were in there facing this,
    there would be enough people on the outside to find someone who
    has been willing to speak up without fear of losing their job.
    There is always, you know, people always say things anonymously
    and say, well, I just can't say it publicly because I will lose
    my job. That is not a source to base judgments on. I can tell
    you that right now. There is a lot of other people on the
    outside who, if there was that repression going on, could come
    out publicly and say, when I was there, this is what happened.
        Mr. Maassarani. Well, if it is very important to you, I can
    perhaps arrange for you to contact that source if you can
    ensure their----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No, no.
        Mr. Maassarani.--confidentiality as well.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Give me the names of several people. Give
    me the names----
        Mr. Maassarani. Yes. I am ready to do so, sir, right now.
        Mr. Rohrabacher.--of three people. Do it on the record for
    Pete's sake.
        Mr. Maassarani. Tom Knutson is a scientist who has had a
    media request denial.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. A media request denial.
        Mr. Maassarani. Denied.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Mr. Maassarani. On three occasions.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Has he had other requests that were
    granted?
        Mr. Maassarani. Yes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh, there you go. Okay.
        Mr. Maassarani. So some requests are okay and others are
    not.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Mr. Maassarani. Weatherald has had four press releases
    squashed.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Mr. Maassarani. And Christopher Millie, Weatherald is also
    from NOAA, and Christopher Millie from USGS----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Mr. Maassarani.--has had two press releases squashed.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So we have----
        Mr. Maassarani. Three examples.
        Mr. Rohrabacher.--so you are suggesting that because
    someone is not permitted to send out a press release, now you
    are saying a press release. With the name of the governmental
    agency on top of the press release? They were denied that? And
    that is an example of suppression?
        Mr. Maassarani. When it is research that this scientist----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No, that is not suppression at all. If
    someone is, wants to send his research out to make sure that
    other scientists know about it, becomes part of the public
    debate, that is a lot different than sending out press
    releases.
        Mr. Maassarani. These press releases are for the media to
    pick up on important research conducted by federal scientists.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Important research as, according to that
    researcher. There may be other scientists who disagree totally
    with that position. Now, you want to, you think that the
    Government should be sending out dueling press releases? Is
    that what it is?
        Mr. Maassarani. No. These are press releases that mark the
    release of studies in peer-reviewed journals.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, that is what I am----
        Mr. Maassarani. Each one of these press releases----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Mr. Maassarani.--I am referring to.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And they were released in the peer, in the
    journals?
        Mr. Maassarani. Yes. They were----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh. Okay.
        Mr. Maassarani.--published in the journals.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So here we have----
        Mr. Maassarani. So other scientists found out about it but
    not the media.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So you are ignoring----
        Mr. Maassarani. Or the public.
        Mr. Rohrabacher.--the fact that the lead scientist from the
    Department of Energy was sacked when he came in by Al Gore and
    the fact that they, that a guy who can actually publish his
    findings in a peer-review journal is being repressed because he
    can't send out a press release with the name of the
    organization on the top.
        Mr. Rothman. The distinguished gentleman's time is, for
    this round, concluded.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. You may have an example for us that you
    might want to put on the record. I mean, Dr. McCarthy.
        Mr. Rothman. While I think that any active injustice is
    something to be criticized, condemned, and fixed, those that
    are farther back in history may be ones we cannot correct, but
    those acts of injustice or bad policy or bad behavior by people
    who are still in office I think are more relevant to this
    committee since we have it within our power as a coequal branch
    to check and balance any abuses by any other branch.
        Would any of you gentlemen like to talk about in more
    detail the meaning of my colleague and friend from California
    talks about or implies some insignificance to the squashing of
    a press release? First of all, is that all we are talking
    about, squashing of press releases, and what is the
    significance of these, of this, of these restrictions? Dr.
    McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. No. We are talking about much more than the
    squashing of press releases. I gave you some examples where
    people were told they could not use the words, ``climate
    change,'' ``global warming,'' and the like. I will report
    documents with names, 70 such sources. You can check those, and
    I think to somehow make reference to someone who was fired some
    years ago and circumstances that we can't possibly reconstruct
    at this point or to suggest that a Dutch and Italian scientist
    were not getting their grants, I mean, my last four grant
    proposals were turned down. I am batting about one out of five.
    I have never suspected that there is some political motivation.
    I am not writing proposals that deal specifically with this
    subject. No one has ever told me, any of the federal agencies
    that if I did or didn't funding would be different.
        I think you need to also look at how research funding
    works, and it is a review process that involves experts in the
    community. The decisions are made by program managers and study
    panels. I have worked extensively in such review analyses of
    panels of the National Science Foundation. I cannot think of
    any time in which there was ever any policy by the directorate
    of the foundation or the foundation in general or something
    that was thought maybe coming on high that said this is the
    kind of research we should be supporting or the kind of
    research we should not be supporting.
        And perhaps I could explain that the way scientists get
    their work supported is not to write a proposal saying I want
    to go out and prove that something that people think is right
    is right. You get it funded because you say I think there is
    something wrong with our conventional position, and I am going
    to prove it. And that is what gets funded.
        Mr. Rothman. Doctor, is there any evidence, or any member
    of the panel, that there was a concerted effort or a conspiracy
    or a matter of agreed-upon policy by, at the highest levels of
    the Administration to confine comments by scientists in federal
    employ or to censor their work? I mean, how high up does it go,
    or was it, were these the acts of renegade members of the Bush
    Administration?
        Mr. Maassarani.
        Mr. Maassarani. This depends a little bit on how you would
    define a conspiracy. I think we do have high-level signals as
    is documented in the report that comes down. We can only infer
    how systematic these signals are and how much their affect has
    been. It definitely seems that White House offices are sending
    these signals through political appointees at the agencies and
    public affairs offices to--and in some very clear instances to
    suppress certain communications by scientists. I am not
    prepared to call this a conspiracy with everyone involved at
    the high levels and the low levels against the scientists, but
    certainly there is something of concern going on.
        Mr. Rothman. Mr. Kueter, can you comment, although you
    haven't made a study of the last six years, do you have an
    opinion on this?
        Mr. Kueter. Well, your colleagues in another committee in
    this Congress posted the deposition of Phil Cooney to their
    website as a product of a hearing that they had where he
    participated a few weeks ago. I would suggest you take time to
    read that lengthy document, because I think it reveals quite
    plainly that the proposition that has been offered doesn't
    exist in the sense of there being high-level efforts in a
    coordinated attempt to suppress scientific discussion of
    climate issues.
        Mr. Rothman. But do you have any view as to, I hear you on
    the high level, the lack of high-level coordinated policy on
    this matter, but do you have any information, evidence, or
    opinion as to whether these examples cited by these three other
    gentlemen did not take place in the Bush Administration in the
    last six years?
        Mr. Kueter. I have no basis to judge the credibility of
    those claims, having not reviewed their studies in any great
    detail for that purpose.
        Mr. Rothman. I thank you. I think we have done it, and let
    me say this. I am going to be looking forward to reading the
    recommendations in each and every one of you gentlemen on how
    to prevent the intimidation, censorship, or mischaracterization
    of scientific findings by federally-employed scientists by
    members of the Federal Government.
        I want to thank the witnesses again and under the rules of
    the Committee the record will be held open for two weeks for
    Members to submit any additional questions they might have to
    the witnesses. And if there is no objection, the witnesses are
    dismissed with our gratitude, and the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                                  Appendix 1:

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Sheldon Rampton, Research Director, Center for Media and
            Democracy, Madison, Wisconsin; Co-author, Trust Us We're
            Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your
            Future

    Questions submitted by Chairman Brad Miller

    Q1.  Why should the Congress care that an industry or major
    multinational corporation funds a campaign of public relations to spin
    science? Is this more than just an exercise of 1st Amendment rights?

    A1. In the case of the tobacco industry, courts have found that the
    industry's efforts to spin science reached the level of actual fraud
    which violated the law. It is one thing to publicly espouse a
    particular interpretation of scientific evidence when the scientific
    community itself is still divided over differing interpretations. It is
    another thing entirely to manufacture the APPEARANCE of doubt when the
    scientific evidence has become overwhelming. This was the case with the
    link between smoking and lung cancer, and has now become the case with
    respect to the link between human-produced greenhouse gas emissions and
    global warming. The tobacco industry's own internal documents show that
    industry executives did understand the true state of the scientific
    evidence, making its public statements to the contrary deliberate
    deceptions. The same thing appears to be true with respect to the
    current state of knowledge regarding global warming, and there are
    numerous examples of companies (such as the pharmaceutical industry)
    deliberately suppressing the publication of data that conflicts with
    their marketing claims about the safety and efficacy of their products.
    These actions cannot reasonably be interpreted as merely the free
    expression of opinion. They constitute deliberate deception of the
    public and should not be tolerated.
        Corporations are not allowed to deliberately deceive their
    investors by withholding or falsifying information about business
    losses, pending lawsuits or other facts which have a bearing on
    assessing the risks of investing in them. I see no reason why they
    should be allowed to deliberately deceive the general public by
    withholding or falsifying information about the risks which their
    activities pose to the environment or public health.
        Beyond the question of whether deliberate deception is involved, I
    think the public also has a right to know who is funding the science
    which is used as the basis for decisions that affect the public.
        Companies certainly have the right (and indeed, a responsibility)
    to fund research into the safety and efficacy of their products. This
    funding does not always create bias, but it is a strong indicator of
    potential bias. Numerous studies have found that research funded by a
    company which makes a particular product tends to exaggerate the
    benefits and downplay the hazards associated with that product. This
    doesn't necessarily reflect fraud on the part of the company or the
    researcher. It may simply mean that they are genuinely excited about
    the positive potential of the product and have an unconscious bias that
    influences their conclusions. I think it is problematic, however, when
    industry-funded research is presented to the public without full and
    prominent disclosure as to its source of funding.
        When the public is told that eating oat bran lowers cholesterol, it
    should also be informed that the research reaching that conclusion was
    sponsored by Quaker Oats. It is entitled to know that the ``Princeton
    Dental Resource Center,'' which claimed that eating chocolate actually
    reduced cavities, was financed by the M&M/Mars candy company and was
    not a part of Princeton University.

    Q2.  Can you shed light on how we should think about the differences
    among non-profit public interest organizations that hire scientists and
    engage in public information campaigns? Some argue that since there are
    groups on all side of all issues, with funding behind them, it makes no
    difference whether the donors are public-minded citizens or
    corporations with a material interest in a particular policy path? Is
    there any difference in your mind between those two kinds of cases?

    A2. I don't think it is true to suggest that comparable funding is
    available to groups ``on all side of all issues.'' Aggregate data about
    the funding sources of science is hard to come by, but we can get a
    good idea of the resources available to various groups by looking at
    data on political giving. According to the Center for Public
    Integrity's database of political giving, for example, the oil and gas
    industry gave $19,090,042 to national political candidates during the
    2006 election cycle and spend $72,492,544 on lobbying. By comparison,
    environmental groups gave only $514,759 to electoral candidates and
    spent $7,687,264. That's a 37-to-1 ratio in political campaign giving,
    and more than a 9-to-1 ratio in spending on lobbying. The National Beer
    Wholesalers Association alone gave $2,946,500, and that's only part of
    the alcoholic beverages industry. I haven't been able to find
    statistics on the political giving by groups concerned about the
    problems related to alcohol consumption such as Mothers Against Drunk
    Driving, but I'm sure it is minuscule by comparison. The sum total
    spent on lobbying by all single-issue ideological groups combined--pro-
    choice advocates, anti-abortionists, senior citizens, and a variety of
    other groups--was $113 million. By contrast, the health care industry
    alone spent $338,441,211, and corporate-sector lobbying for all
    industries combined was more than $2.3 billion.
        As these figures suggest, industry groups have much more money to
    spend on shaping public opinion and public policy than non-profit
    public interest organizations, and this applies as well with respect to
    hiring of scientists for public information campaigns.
        Environmental groups and other issue-advocacy organizations
    certainly do hire scientists and make scientific arguments to promote
    their policy goals, and it is certainly fair to expect that their
    scientists are as susceptible to bias as industry scientists.
        However, these groups have a lot less money with which to promote
    biased science than the corporate sector. As a practical matter, the
    biases that we need to worry about the most are the biases held by
    people who have the money and power to influence policies.

    Question submitted by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.

    Q1.  In your testimony you illustrate how industry influences the media
    through surrogate organizations. Have you looked into whether or not
    advocacy organizations use the same techniques?

    A1. As I stated in my answer to the second question by Chairman Miller,
    the scientific claims made by advocacy organizations should be greeted
    with the same expectations of tendentious bias that should be applied
    to claims made by industry-funded scientists. However, the specific use
    of ``surrogates''--by which I mean the use of scientists as third-party
    spokespersons without disclosure of their industry sponsorship--is
    something that advocacy organizations rarely if ever do. I cannot think
    of a single instance where a group such as Greenpeace or the Center for
    Science in the Public Interest or the National Right to Life Committee
    or the National Rifle Association has sponsored a scientist to act as
    their spokesperson while concealing that sponsorship. To the contrary,
    most advocacy organizations actively publicize their relationship with
    the scientists in their employ.
        The reason for this is simple: Advocacy organizations have no
    motive to conceal their sponsorship of scientists. A typical advocacy
    organization seeks funding from the public, and it wants potential
    donors to believe that it is doing a great deal and accomplishing a lot
    with their contributions. If a group like Greenpeace hires a scientist
    to produce a report on global warming, therefore, it has a strong
    incentive to inform people that it has done so. Moreover, there is no
    advantage to concealment. A scientist's affiliation with a group like
    Greenpeace does not diminish the credibility of that scientist's claims
    in the eyes of the general public (and especially not in the eyes of
    potential Greenpeace donors) in the same way that a scientist's
    credibility may be diminished if he is known to be working for
    ExxonMobil.
        There is, however, a related problem of third-party surrogacy
    related to advocacy organizations. Many think tanks and advocacy groups
    are themselves used as surrogates for undisclosed interests, in the
    same way that individual scientists are used for this purpose. For
    example, the Philip Morris tobacco company created a group called The
    Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) to publicly dispute the
    science linking secondhand cigarette smoke to lung cancer. The company
    went to great lengths to conceal the fact that TASSC was created by one
    of its public relations firms and funded almost entire with corporate
    grants. There are many groups of this type--the ``American Council on
    Science and Health,'' ``Citizens for the Integrity of Science,'' or
    ``Consumer Alert''--which receive most of their funding from corporate
    sponsors rather than individual donors while declining to disclose the
    identity of their actual funders.
        My organization, the Center for Media and Democracy, has long
    advocated that nonprofit organizations which receive tax-exempt status
    should be required, as a condition for tax exemption, to disclose a
    list of all of their significant institutional funders.
        Just as the public has a right to know who is funding the
    scientific research that is used to influence public opinion and public
    policy, the public also ought to know who is funding the work of other
    groups that seek to influence them.
                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of
            Biological Oceanography, Harvard University; Board Member,
            Union of Concerned Scientists

    Questions submitted by Chairman Brad Miller

    Q1.  Dr. McCarthy, in January 2007, a spokesman for ExxonMobil said the
    company had stopped funding climate skeptic organizations such as the
    Competitiveness Enterprise Institute. Do you know if ExxonMobil is
    still funding a campaign of climate science doubt? How could we verify
    what role they are playing?

    A1. UCS's January 2007 Report, Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air, found that
    between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil funneled close to $16 million to 43
    groups working to manufacture uncertainty around global warming
    science. Faced with public outrage over its cynical campaign to delay
    action on global warming, ExxonMobil has launched a PR campaign aimed
    at softening its image as a climate skeptic. The company finally
    acknowledges the global warming threat and has cut funding for some of
    the most egregious climate contrarians groups, including the
    Competitive Enterprise Institute.
        However, Exxon's 2006 World Giving Report reveals that twenty four
    of the groups identified in the UCS report received an additional $1.6
    million in funding in 2006. Four groups that received continued funding
    in 2006 have consistently been at the center of ExxonMobil's fight
    against action on global warming: The Heartland Institute, George C.
    Marshall Institute, American Legislative Exchange Council and Frontiers
    of Freedom. A leaked 1998 American Petroleum Institute memo linked
    these groups to the Global Climate Science Communications Plan, a
    multi-year, multi-million dollar strategy to manufacture uncertainty
    around the science of global warming. Total 2006 funding to these
    groups alone was $421,000 with a sum of over $3.6 million since 1998.

    Q2.  In his written testimony, Mr. Kueter charges that groups like UCS
    and the British Royal Society are ``seeking to silence honest debate
    and discussion of our most challenging environmental issue--climate
    change.'' He also writes that ``the censorship of voices that challenge
    and provoke is antithetical to liberty and contrary to the traditions
    and values of free societies.'' Is there an effort to silence honest
    debate? Dr. McCarthy, do you want to comment on these claims?

    A2. UCS supports ``honest debate and discussion of our most challenging
    environmental issue-climate change.'' The key word is ``honest'' as
    some individuals have a long history of invoking outdated publications
    that have been subsequently overturned by many additional peer-reviewed
    papers that have pointed out the flaws in the original evidence,
    methods, etc. This is ``cherry picking'' at its most dishonest. UCS
    supports open dialogue and full discussion of all evidence-based
    science that represents the current state of knowledge. In other words,
    the UCS is totally committed to the antithesis of censorship and the
    exact opposite of silencing honest scientific debate.

    Q3.  Dr. McCarthy, in your view does the Marshall Institute do
    scientific work? How does it compare to the kind of work done by
    research scientists in universities or even the work done by a body
    such as the IPCC?

    A3. University research findings typically result in a publication with
    several research authors that is peer-reviewed by a few external
    experts. Any errors in these publications typically become apparent
    through formal ``comment'' and ``reply'' publications in the original
    journal. The evaluation process occurs further when subsequent articles
    are published in other respected journals that point out the errors or
    confirm the original hypothesis. The IPCC effectively re-reviews the
    published climate science on a more comprehensive scale. For example,
    the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC in 2007 received and fully
    considered around 30,000 review comments.
        The IPCC's technical reports derive their credibility principally
    from a, transparent, and iterative peer review process that is far more
    extensive than that associated with scientific journals. This is due to
    the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds
    and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent ``review
    editors'' who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and
    appropriately resolved by the authors. Furthermore, according to IPCC
    principles, lead authors are ``required to record views in the text
    which are scientifically or technically valid, even if they cannot be
    reconciled with a consensus view.'' Finally, it is important to note
    that the authors of IPCC reports are nominated by national governments,
    and the final IPCC reports are approved by delegations from more than
    one hundred nations (including the U.S.A. and all other industrialized
    nations).
        Several organizations, some non-profit and others with links to
    commercial interests, endeavor to translate climate science into forms
    that are more accessible to the general public and the policy
    community. When a report from any such group, including the George C.
    Marshall Institute, appears to provide a new interpretation or
    synthesis of findings (since most of these organizations do not conduct
    original scientific research) it is important to ask who authored the
    report, by whom was it reviewed and what are these individuals'
    credentials. If authors and reviewers are not named, if the process by
    which the report was written and reviewed seems opaque or if the
    authors of a climate report do not have the stature of IPCC authors,
    then one needs to be cautious, especially if the intent of the report
    is to challenge conventional science.

    Q4.  Dr. McCarthy, some people seem to have the impression that the
    IPCC and various National Academy statements reflect ``consensus''
    views that ignore the work of scientists who hold other views. Are they
    correct?

    A4. The word ``consensus'' is often invoked, and sometimes questioned,
    when speaking of IPCC reports. In fact, there are two arenas in which a
    consensus needs to be reached in the production of IPCC assessments;
    one is the meeting of the entire IPCC, in which unanimity is sought
    among government representatives. Even though such consensus is not
    required (countries are free to register their formal dissent),
    agreement has been reached on all documents and ``Summary for Policy-
    makers'' (SPMs) to date-a particularly impressive fact.
        Consensus is also sought among the scientists writing each chapter
    of the technical reports. Because it would be clearly unrealistic to
    aim for unanimous agreement on every aspect of the report, the goal is
    to have all of the working group's authors agree that each side of the
    scientific debate has been represented fairly.
        IPCC ensures that the scientific credibility and political
    legitimacy of its reports represents fairly the range of scientific
    understanding of climate change. To this end, the IPCC provides several
    channels for input from experts along the entire spectrum of scientific
    views, including those of statured scientists who do not expect large
    future anthropogenic effects on climate.
        First, accredited NGOs from all sides of the issue are welcome as
    observers at the opening plenary session and some other sessions over
    the course of the report production cycle. In addition, well-known
    contrarians can and do become contributing authors by submitting
    material to lead authors, and play advisory roles for their governments
    by working with government representatives to revise and approve the
    final SPMs.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Edwards, P., and S. Schneider. 1997. Climate change: Broad
    consensus or ``scientific cleansing''? Ecofables/Ecoscience 1:3-9.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The presence of climate change experts from industry and
    environmental organizations in the assessment process also illustrates
    the IPCC's desire to seek input from outside traditional research
    institutions. Industry examples have included representatives from the
    Electric Power Research Institute and ExxonMobil. Environmental
    examples have included representatives from Environmental Defense, the
    Natural Resources Defense Council, and others all over the world.
        Climate contrarians frequently claim that the IPCC produces
    politically motivated reports that show only one side of the issues.\2\
    Given the many stages at which experts from across the political and
    scientific spectrum are included in the process, however, this is a
    difficult position to defend.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Masood, E. 1996. Head of climate group rejects claims of
    political influence. Nature 381:455.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Questions submitted by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.

    Q1.  Your organization receives a substantial amount of money from
    private foundations.

            a.  Does that money come with the strings attached?

            b.  Do you think ExxonMobil's contributions to Stanford, Yale,
            Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Columbia, the University of Texas, and
            Carnegie Mellon came with strings attached?

            c.  Do you think those contributions influence those
            institution's work?

            d.  Why do you think similar contributions will impact the
            organizations in your report?

    A1. The majority of grants to the Union of Concerned Scientists from
    private foundations are designated for specific projects as described
    in the grant proposal. Most importantly, the genesis for the project
    lies with UCS, not the foundation. UCS writes proposals for various
    projects which are funded only if the foundation decides the proposal
    is in line with its priorities.
        In the UCS report Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air there is a comparison
    between the large donations by ExxonMobil to university research
    compared to the relatively smaller proportion given to organizations
    that have historically misrepresented scientific understanding about
    climate change. For example the report notes:

             ``In its most significant effort of this kind, ExxonMobil has
            pledged $100 million over ten years to help underwrite Stanford
            University's Global Climate and Energy Project. According to
            the program's literature, the effort seeks to develop new
            energy technologies that will permit the development of global
            energy systems with significantly lower global warming
            emissions.''

        The UCS report does not express any concerns about the value or
    independence of the work done by these academic institutions.
    Similarly, the report does not directly claim that ExxonMobil's
    contributions to organizations that have a record of misrepresenting
    the current knowledge about the science of climate change were an
    attempt to influence the views or writings of those groups. Rather, our
    claim is that ExxonMobil's funding of these groups serves to amplify
    the misleading messages of these groups and confuses the public on the
    climate issue.

    Q2.  It is important to separate scientific interference from policy
    guidance. You included the following question in your survey:
    ``Question 6, The U.S. Government has done a good job funding climate
    change research.'' How does a budget question equate to scientific
    interference?

    A2. Our survey was designed to obtain information about the general
    work environment for U.S. Government climate scientists, and as such,
    not every question addressed the problem of direct political
    interference in the work of scientists. Reducing funding for a
    particular line of research does not necessarily equate to direct
    political interference in science, and this question was not asked with
    that inference in mind.
        However, the results of this question (more than half of the
    respondents disagreed that the U.S. Government has done a good job
    funding climate change research) and the large number of essay
    responses on the topic of funding may be taken as supporting evidence
    for a funding crisis in federal climate science. When adjusted for
    inflation, federal funding for climate science has fallen since the
    mid-1990s.\3\ A 2005 report by the National Research Council (NRC)'s
    Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space concluded that
    our system of Earth-observation satellites is at ``risk of collapse''
    and is jeopardized by delays and cancellations of several planned NASA
    satellite missions.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007.
    Climate Change Science Program Budget, by Agency. Online at http://
    www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ccsp07cht.pdf
        \4\ National Research Council, Committee on Earth Science and
    Applications from Space. 2005. Earth Science and Applications from
    Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve the Nation. Washington,
    DC: The National Academies Press.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In a statement earlier this year, the Board of Directors of the
    American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) echoed the
    concerns of the NRC committee and called upon Congress and the
    administration to implement the NRC recommendations ``for restoring
    U.S. capabilities in Earth observations from space to acceptable
    levels.'' \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ AAAS Board Statement on The Crisis in Earth Observation from
    Space. April 28, 2007. Online at http://www.aaas.org/eos
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        High-quality data about our climate is the crucial first ingredient
    to understanding the science of climate change and crafting effective
    policies for dealing with the threat.
                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Tarek F. Maassarani, Staff Attorney, Government
            Accountability Project

    Questions submitted by Chairman Brad Miller

    Q1.  Mr. Maassarani, could you elaborate on your observation that media
    policies were often driven from offices in the White House complex?

    A1. Most prominently, our report detailed numerous instances in which
    White House executive offices are involved in the editing and clearance
    of scientific reports. To what extent the White House has interfered
    with media communications, and in particular shaped media policies, is
    less concretely established. Our report documents several examples
    where the White House was connected to practices that restricted media
    communications. Consider, for example, an e-mail dated June 13, 2005,
    in which National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) public
    affairs officer Kent Laborde tells a NOAA senior scientist
    Venkatachalam Ramaswamy:

             CEQ [Counsel on Environmental Quality] and OSTP [Office of
            Science and Technology Policy] have given the green light for
            the interview with Ram. They had me call Juliet [Eilperin, the
            reporter who requested the interview] to find out more
            specifics. She will be asking the following:

                      what research are you doing with climate
                    change

                      what research has been encouraged or
                    discouraged by the administration

                      what interaction has he had with the
                    administration

                      does he have free reign to conduct the
                    research her [sic] wants to do

             I told Juliette [sic] that he feels comfortable to comment
            only on science and does not want to loose [sic] his scientific
            objectivity by addressing policy/potitical [sic] questions. She
            said since he is not a policy-maker, she wouldn't ask policy
            questions.

             Michele [St. Martin of CEQ] wants me to monitor the call and
            report back to her when it's done. . .

        Similarly, an anonymous public affairs officer at NASA told us how
    he sat in on phone calls made between public affairs headquarters and
    OSTP discussing control of certain scientists' media exposure.
        Such incidents compounded by the lack of transparent decision-
    making above the heads of scientists and mid-and high-level public
    affairs staff suggest that the chain of command reaches up to the White
    House for media communications dealing with sensitive science.
    Nonetheless, with the exception of the Climate Change Science Program
    (CCSP), this high-level involvement in routine media communications was
    never stated or put forward as official policy--as distinct from
    practice. In the case of the CCSP, which has significant representation
    from White House offices on its communications working group, it has
    been clearly stated as a matter of policy that CCSP staff is not
    authorized to talk to the press. Rather, media inquiries are referred
    to NOAA or the CEQ chairman.

    Q2.  In your review of e-mails and interviews with scientists, do you
    always see the hand of the White House--either the President's Council
    on Environmental Quality or the Office of Science and Technology
    Policy--behind climate change suppression efforts?

    A2. As discussed above, there is limited direct evidence of White House
    involvement with climate change suppression efforts in our FOIA and
    interview record. What we have found however suggests that this is not
    because these efforts do not exist, but because they are opaque and
    evasive. White House involvement seems to occur by telephone or in
    person, to which only a select few individuals within the agency are
    privy. Although outgoing e-mail traffic from the agencies suggested
    White House involvement, our FOIA obtained few if any e-mails from the
    executive offices. As you are well aware, Waxman's staff has had
    similar difficulties obtaining information about White House
    communications with its agencies.
                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Jeff Kueter, President, George C. Marshall Institute

    Questions submitted by Chairman Brad Miller

    Q1.  Mr. Kueter, when did the Marshall Institute receive its last
    funding from ExxonMobil or its foundation?

    A1. We received support from ExxonMobil in 2006.

    Q2.  Do you currently have a financial relationship with Exxon Mobil,
    its foundation or any of its public relations firms to fund work on
    climate science or any other issue.

    A2. We have submitted renewal proposals to ExxonMobil in support of our
    climate change and energy policy programs for 2007.

    Q3.  How did the Marshall Institute become aware that ExxonMobil was
    funding policy organizations to support a climate science work? funding
    from ExxonMobil or its foundation?

    A3. The Marshall Institute's climate program began in 1989. The
    Institute did not begin accepting corporate contributions until 1999
    even though the Institute was accused of being ``corporate financed.''
    A statement by a past Institute Executive Director explaining this
    change in policy is available at http://www.marshall.org/
    article.php?id=17, which is a reprint of an op-ed appearing in the Wall
    Street Journal on July 2, 1997. I was not employed with the Marshall
    Institute during this period and am not aware of the circumstances
    surrounding the receipt of the first grant from ExxonMobil. A review of
    the available records shows that the Institute prepared a grant request
    to the Exxon Education Foundation for general operations support in
    August 1999.

    Q4.  Have you or any other figures associated with the Marshall
    Institute ever participated in a meeting or conference involving Exxon
    Mobil representatives or representatives of its foundation to discuss
    how to carry out your climate science work or to coordinate that work
    among other organizations funded by ExxonMobil?

    A4. I review the substance of our past activities and our plans for the
    future at an annual meeting with a designated representative of
    ExxonMobil. This meeting is held in conjunction with the submission of
    our annual report on activities and request for renewal. Such meetings
    are common practice. Our programs and activities are designed and
    implemented independently of any supporter or interest Subsequently,
    the Institute's climate program is independently reviewed and approved
    by our board of directors. The Institute's Chief Executive Officer,
    William O'Keefe, has an acknowledged private business relationship with
    ExxonMobil. We participate in numerous meetings and conferences
    discussing climate change, some of which involve sponsors or potential
    sponsors.

    Questions Submitted by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.

    Q1.  In 2005 the Marshall Institute reported on the funding for climate
    change research, in particular you contrasted the difference between
    contributions from industry with those of private foundations and the
    Federal Government.

    A1. Yes, we published a report in 2005, Funding Flows for Climate
    Change Research and Related Activities (http://www.marshall.org/
    article.php?id=289), examining financial support by foundations and the
    Federal Government to non-profit groups and universities for climate-
    related activities. We were motivated to explore the efforts which are
    often made to impugn the credibility by virtue of their associations
    and financial relationships rather than scrutiny of their beliefs or
    objective research.

    Q2.  Please walk us through your findings. In particular, how does
    funding from industry differ with funding from private foundations?

    A2. Our study compiled data on grants from private foundations to
    nonprofit institutes for the period 2000-2002 and for Federal
    Government expenditures over a range of years. Our main findings were:

              The study of climate change science and the policy
            ramifications of climate change is a multi-billion dollar
            enterprise in the United States.

              Private foundations distribute a minimum of $35-50
            million annually to nonprofit organizations and universities to
            comment on or study various elements of the climate change
            debate. With respect to foundation grants, unlike many other
            studies of the same topic, we limited our focus solely to those
            grants specifically designated as supporting a climate change-
            related effort. Given this constraint, our estimates are, if
            anything, low.

              This support was significant for many of the
            receiving institutions. Climate change-related projects
            accounted for over 25 percent of the three-year total reported
            grants and contributions received by 10 of the top 20
            institutions. For six organizations, climate change grants
            accounted for 50 percent of their reported grants and
            contributions received.

              A cursory glimpse of the list of recipients of those
            private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent by
            groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and
            who believe that climate change requires dramatic government
            action.

              The U.S. Federal Government spent nearly $2 billion
            to support climate change science programs in FY 2004.

              More than 2,000 separate climate change-related
            grants were distributed by federal departments and agencies in
            FY 2002, the most recent year for which comprehensive data is
            available.

              Federal support for R&D in the environmental sciences
            field has tripled in the past 20 years, rising from $1.2
            billion in 1980 to $3.6 billion in 2002, according to data
            available from the National Science Foundation.

              In the field of atmospheric science, for example,
            federally funded R&D accounted for more than 80 percent of
            total expenditures for nearly one-half of the top 30
            institutions in the five-year period (1998-2002).

              If funding alone invariably affects findings and
            opinions, then what should we make of the significantly greater
            amounts spent by foundations and the Federal Government? The
            American scientific enterprise is critically dependent on
            funding from the Federal Government and without that support
            would contract dramatically. While the growth in federal
            support for R&D brings new opportunities, it also has resulted
            in near complete dependence of individual researchers and
            university programs on publicly-financed R&D. Yet, the focus
            remains on the alleged distorting influence of corporate
            funding on scientific results despite the fact that there are
            powerful incentives to avoid such conflicts of interest. In the
            end, if the alleged distorting influences of financial ties are
            true, then they impact all participants in the marketplace of
            ideas.
                                  Appendix 2:

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record