Notes and Comment expresses concern about the OMB peer review proposal and links this WaPo article.

The administration proposal, which is open for comment from federal agencies through Friday and could take effect in the next few months, would block the adoption of new federal regulations unless the science being used to justify them passes muster with a centralized peer review process that would be overseen by the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Administration officials say the approach reflects President Bush's commitment to "sound science."

Notes and Comment expresses these concerns...

Peer review is one thing, 'centralized' peer review is another, and 'centralized' peer review overseen by the White House Office of Management and Budget is quite, quite another. Which peers would those be, exactly? Centralized by whom? And - 'overseen' in what sense, using what criteria? One can guess all too easily.

...And quotes the WaPo article.

But a number of scientific organizations, citizen advocacy groups and even a cadre of former government regulators see a more sinister motivation: an effort to inject White House politics into the world of science and to use the uncertainty that inevitably surrounds science as an excuse to delay new rules that could cost regulated industries millions of dollars...Under the current system, individual agencies typically invite outside experts to review the accuracy of their science and the scientific information they offer...The proposed change would usurp much of that independence. It lays out specific rules regarding who can sit on peer review panels -- rules that, to critics' dismay, explicitly discourage the participation of academic experts who have received agency grants but offer no equivalent warnings against experts with connections to industry. And it grants the executive branch final say as to whether the peer review process was acceptable.

I think that those who see this as a politicization of science are mistaken. This is a politicization of politics not science. In the previous post Richard Muller's sage advice was quoted.

Present results with caution, and insist on equivocating. Leave it to the president and his advisors to make decisions based on uncertain conclusions. Don’t exaggerate the results. Use both hands. We cannot afford to lower our standards merely because the problem is so urgent.

The politicization of science we have seen all during the 20th century, especially in the latter half, resulted from politics creeping into science as scientists, who have political views like anyone else, shaded their results to favor their own political views. The scientific organizations, citizen advocacy groups and cadre of former government regulators that express concern are political organizations that have politicized science. Their methods are to use scientific issues as wedges for political gain, often to the detriment of society as a whole, damaging science in the process. A loss of credibility of science and scientists is the result.

Regulation IS a political issue rather than a scientific issue. There ARE many considerations other than science that matter to self governing societies. Scientists cannot make useful contributions to society when they abdicate their role in informing the debate by attempting to persuade others to their political views. Scientists are no more qualified to make political decisions than anyone else since they are as naive about some aspects of the whole issue as others are of science. For society to function well we must trust one another and cooperate. We must trust scientists to inform us of their findings as they must trust other specialists to inform them, and we must decide based on their information. We elect politicians to administrate this process, to herd all the skittish cats in the general direction we have decided is best. When we are wrong we throw the bums out and elect a new team.

We can't do this as easily with scientists. We have no good mechanisms to throw out scientists that have gone bad, no direct methods to act against scientific misconduct. We rely on scientists to police themselves. What we can do is to reduce the incentives for misconduct by de-politicizing science, by reclaiming politics for politicians. When scientists have no special advantages in politics they have no incentive to shade their results, or even fake them, for gain.

As a group scientists have not shown good sense in political matters. They are subject to intellectual capture by their passions and enthusiasms, loss of mental balance as they lose patience with mundane issues that distract them from their intense and narrow focus on their quarry. They may not be able to understand why it is important for them to defer to others in practical decisions of governance but they can accept rules. Perhaps this can be understood as an analogy to domestic management, a field many scientists do not grasp at all. To survive it is common for scientists to simply obey their domestic masters, often a spouse, though they have no insights about the things required of them. Such cooperative arrangements are small versions of societies that have similar patterns. We need scientists to inform us of their findings and listen to others about their findings. Cooperation rather than domination is needed.