Elizabeth Blackburn is a prominent cell biologist from San Francisco. For the last two years she has been a member of the Council on Bioethics, a federal government committee that advises the President in matters relating to biological research and that has had frequent heated debates. "I want to hear all sides before I decide," George W. Bush promised her at a meeting in the White House. According to Blackburn, last January all members of the Council were confirmed for another two years.
But a few days ago Blackburn had a phone call from the White House.
"Without giving me any reasons," she says, "I was dismissed, effective immediately." A professor of ethics who, like Blackburn, expressed support of therapeutic cloning also had to leave. They are to be replaced by three new members: a political scientist who is an outspoken foe of abortion, another political scientist who has described embryonic stem-cell research as "evil," and a renowned and deeply religious surgeon ("Make Christ the center of your life").
In Bush's America, critics complain, religious fanatics, corporate lobbyists, and fundamentalists on questions of security now have control over science. In league with the administration, they have created a medieval climate that worries many people: Ideology is winning out over information; America's hard-liners are not afraid of falsifying the facts.
More than sixty prominent scientists have signed an open letter, among them are twenty Nobel laureates, pre-eminent authorities from some of the country's foremost universities, and former scientific advisors to Democratic as well as Republican presidents. All accuse the Bush administration of politicizing scientific research, of suppressing, distorting or manipulating scientific facts to support its own policies. The signatories call on Congress to investigate.
Bush's science advisor, John Marburger, hastened to say that the protest by these leading academics was groundless. In this regard, his own position speaks volumes: In the White House hierarchy he ranks lower than any scientific advisor since the early 1990s.
Along with its letter, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) submitted a report in which UCS chairman, Kurt Gottfried, a physicist born in Austria, writes: "The misuse of science will have serious consequences for our health, security, and the environment."
Gottfried documents examples of how loyal Bush followers are systematically filling advisory committees with unqualified but devoted candidates, how they impose censorship on irksome researchers or simply dismiss their expert advice on policies ranging from climate change to Iraq. Nuclear experts at the Department of Energy knew from the outset that the aluminum tubes ordered by Baghdad were not suited for the production of atomic weapons. But that was of no interest.
Previous administrations may have acted similarly, but "I don't ever recall it's having been so blatant in the past," says Val Fitch of Princeton University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics in 1980.
There is a method to this madness. At many schools, in spite of the risk of AIDS, teachers have been forbidden to use the word "condom." Wherever federal funds support sex instruction, the lesson plan says it isn't prevention but abstinence that can protect against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Bush already supported this policy when he was governor of Texas, for his supporters in the ranks of the Christian right believe anyone who explains the use of condoms is encouraging premature sex and promiscuity.
The devout powers-that-be are not interested in the fact that researchers have found nothing to support this belief, but rather that there is excellent proof of the effectiveness of condoms. Texas is near the top on the list of states with the most teenage pregnancies.
Reelection candidate Bush has now expanded his program to many other states and wants to double its budget to 270 million dollars. The only measurable result of drumming in abstinence is that young people are actually having their first sexual experience a few months later, but then they usually do it without any protection.
Bush is following a similarly disastrous course in the very epicenter of the AIDS catastrophe: These recommendations of abstinence and fidelity are supposed to relieve Africa's HIV calamity. This year Washington is going to invest 350 million dollars in the fight to combat AIDS in Africa; that's only a fraction of what was originally promised. A large part of the money will be given to church groups. In the Bush plan condoms are not thought of as commonly used protection, but are considered only an extreme measure for limiting the danger among so-called high-risk groups - an unrealistic strategy for a country like Botswana where more than every third person between 15 and 49 years of age is already infected with HIV.
"It is shocking to see," says biochemist Elizabeth Blackburn, "how generally accepted measures are being misused for political reasons by this administration." AIDS researchers report that in formulating research grant applications the viewpoints of the conservatives are leading to self-censorship. Anyone who uses unacceptable words like "prostitutes" or "anal sex" on his application has already lost out.
On the other hand someone who can include the phrase "fighting against terrorism" in his research grant application is playing with a good hand. Billions of dollars are going to those working on sensors for biological and chemical weapons, in fact on anything that might seem useful to the national security. The two most important research organizations, the National Institute for Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have seen slight increases in their budgets, and yet not all those in responsible positions at these agencies are happy: True, they can now, as directed, spend more money on the battle against smallpox and anthrax. But on the other hand some research programs that have existed for years - cancer, heart disease, AIDS, and Alzheimer - are now at risk.
Moreover another danger threatens scientific research in the United States. Following September 11th, new visa regulations have been making entry into the U.S. more and more difficult for foreigners who do a large part of the research work at U.S. universities. Many have to endure weeklong security checks and interviews at embassies and consulates.
At Cornell University, for example, the number of applications by Chinese students has dropped by 36 percent. Senior researchers are not being spared either. Charles Weissmann, a renowned 72-year-old prion expert from Switzerland, was supposed to have headed a research institute in Florida beginning March 1st. But he'll probably arrive six weeks later because prions are on the list of possible terrorist weapons, and so his entry application is being scrutinized with special thoroughness.
Many scientists are fed up with being led around by the nose. In August 2001 Bush promised sixty embryonic stem-cell lines to researchers supported by federal funds, and that too turned out to be misleading. In any case they now can use fifteen cell lines. Harvard University has consequently decided to declare a kind of independence from government funds. The university intends to invest about one hundred million dollars to construct one of the largest stem-cell centers in the world, where they plan to develop their own lines of stem cells and undertake research independent of Washington handicaps and federal money.
"Frankly," says scientist George Daley, "Harvard has the resources, Harvard has the breadth and, frankly, Harvard has the responsibility" to do this.
MARCO EVERS
Translated by Margot Bettauer Dembo
© DER SPIEGEL 12/2004
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH
