September 9, 2003
The Truth and Nothing But?... Let's take five with Moira Gunn. This is "Five Minutes".
Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Whitman is being skewered these days for being overly reassuring about the air in Lower Manhattan post 9/11. The dust-up started with a report and statement issued by Nikki Tinsley, the EPA's Inspector General.
Tinsley says that certain early EPA press releases and statements which Christine Whitman made were premature, simply because the scientific data wasn't in yet. And Tinsley also questions the removal of cautionary wording from press releases and reports after they had wound their way through the White House, the Council on Environmental Quality and others.
On her current criticisms, Tinsley states that all her information comes solely from within the EPA, that her office was unable to speak directly with the people involved from the White House or the other agencies, and she passed the report to no outside agency before she released it.
From where I stand, that makes it fraught with problems.
--
Certainly, White House spin is something we all take for granted, no matter the administration, and in this case, it seems the White House felt that cautionary notes from EPA scientists were unacceptable. Saying that we don't know the long-term consequences of breathing the post 9/11 air and that there were spikes of asbestos, although they appeared to dissipate quickly, was considered far more than the public at that time was ready for. From a scientist's standpoint, it's simply the truth.
It's important that the White House review these reports early on, but there needs to be some guidelines for what they can and can't influence. For example, if they don't like cautions, they can ask the EPA to get other responsible opinions, and present the public with differing scientific perspectives. This lets the public make their choice.
I may want to go right back downtown, and you may, too, but you choose to wear breathing apparatus 24/7, and our friend Joe can hightail it out of town to a safer location. There is simply no room for the government to fabricate safety, much less leave the impression that it is backed up by non-existent science.
--
Science, government, politics and society will always have a challenging relationship, but we can't re-make science to fit the needs of the others. Scientific answers almost never come in black and white, one or zero, it's safe or it's not. The answers are always within a context, within known limits, but that doesn't mean that science can't or doesn't serve society.
And society can feel comforted by the fact that science always knows that more information is coming, that more truth is just around the corner, and as soon as it knows something, it will make it available to everyone.
What I find most disconcerting about this situation is the two primary players involved. Before Christine Whitman headed the EPA, she had a long and significant record of government service, including being a state governor. But Christine Whitman is no scientist.
And Nikki Tinsley? She too has a long and distinguished government record ... as an auditor. That's right. Nikki Tinsley is a CPA, which is absolutely essential for the role of EPA's Inspector General, when you consider the billions of dollars which flow each year. But we can't confuse dollars and science, and the Office of Inspector General has two conflicting roles.
Government entities, whose purpose it is to serve the public good and whose very mission has, at its core, science and technology, needs leadership with serious scientific credentials. Period.
I'm Moira Gunn. This is Five Minutes.
