Science, Politics, and Federal Advisory Committees

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 350, Issue 14, 2004, Pages 1454-1460

  Steinbrook, Robert ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC MANIPULATION; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN CLONING; MEDICARE; POLITICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SCIENCE;

BIOETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS; PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS; SECRETARY'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTIONS;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; BIOETHICAL ISSUES; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; POLICY MAKING; POLITICS; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 1842587809     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMhpr033416     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. Milbank D, Broder DS. Hopes for civility in Washington are dashed. Washington Post. January 18, 2004:A1.
2. Scientific integrity in policymaking: an investigation into the Bush administration's misuse of science. Cambridge, Mass.: Union of Concerned Scientists, February 2004. (Accessed March 11, 2004, at http://www2.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageD=1322.)
3. Preeminent scientists protest Bush administration's misuse of science. Cambridge, Mass.: Union of Concerned Scientists, February 18, 2004. (Accessed March 11, 2004, at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/rsirelease.html.)
4. Weiss R. Bush ejects two from bioethics council. Washington Post. February 28, 2004:A6.
5. Blackburn E. Bioethics and the political distortion of biomedical science. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1379-80.
6. Caplan A, Dworkin G, Feudtner C, et al. Open letter to President Bush regarding Council on Ethics. March 3, 2004. (Accessed March 11, 2004, at http://www.bioethics.net/openletter.php.)
7. Kass L. We don't play politics with science. Washington Post. March 3, 2004:A27.
8. Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463 (Oct. 6, 1972).
9. Weiss R. HHS seeks science advice to match Bush views. Washington Post. September 17, 2002:A1.
10. Zitner A. Advisors put under a microscope. Los Angeles Times. December 23, 2003:A1.
11. Begley S. Now, science panelists are picked for ideology rather than expertise. Wall Street Journal. December 6, 2002:B1.
12. Jasanoff S. (No?) accounting for expertise. Sci Public Policy 2003;30:157-62.
13. Ferber D. Critics see a tilt in a CDC science panel. Science 2002;297:1456.
14. Idem. Overhaul of CDC panel revives lead safety debate. Science 2002;298:732.
15. Weiss R. New status for embryos in research. Washington Post. October 30, 2002:A1.
16. Tumulty K. Jesus and the FDA. Time. October 14, 2002:21.
17. Ferber D. HHS intervenes in choice of study section members. Science 2002;298:1323.
18. Loomis D. Unpopular opinions need not apply. Science 2002;298:1335-6.
19. United States House of Representatives. Committee on Government Reform-Minority Staff. Politics and science in the Bush Administration. August 2003. (Accessed March 11, 2004, at http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/report.htm.)
20. Michaels D, Bingham E, Boden L, et al. Advice without dissent. Science 2002;298:703.
21. Kennedy D. An epidemic of politics. Science 2003;299:625.
22. Committee on the Organizational Structure of the National institutes of Health, National Research Council. Enhancing the vitality of the National Institutes of Health: organizational changes to meet new challenges. Washington, D.C.: National Academics Press, 2003.
23. Jasanoff S. The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990.
24. Anderson FR. Improving scientific advice to government. Issues Sci Technol 2003;19(3):34-8.
25. EPA's science advisory board panels: improved policies and procedures needed. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, June 2001. (GAO-01-536.)
26. Marshall E. Hit list at the EPA? Science 1983;219:1303.
27. Hilts PJ. Abortion debate clouds research on fetal tissue. New York Times. October 16, 1989:A19.
28. Idem. Ideological tests ruled out in filling U.S. science jobs. New York Times. October 30, 1989:A1.
29. Federal Advisory Committee Act database. (Accessed March 11, 2004, at http://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/.)
30. Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. Overview of federal advisory committees at the NIH. (Accessed March 11, 2004, at http://www1.od.nih.gov/cmo/about/index.html.)
31. FDA advisory committees information line - 2003 mailbox codes (list of FDA advisory committees). (Accessed March 11, 2004, at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/listinfo.htm.)
32. The National Academics. Committee membership - open for comment. (Accessed March 11, 2004, at http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/open+for+comment?OpenView.)
33. Kennedy D. "Well, they were doing it too." Science 2003;302:17.
34. Federman DD, Hanna KE, Rodriquez L, eds. Responsible research: a systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2003.
35. Leary WE. Congress's science agency prepares to close its doors. New York Times. September 24, 1995:A26.
36. Drazen JM, Ingelfinger JR. Grants, politics, and the NIH. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2259-61.
37. Steinbrook R. Peer review and federal regulations. N Engl J Med 2004;350:103-4.
38. Weiss R. Peer review plan draws criticism. Washington Post. January 15, 2004:A19.