 |
|
Protecting Special Interests in the Name of "Good Science"
Linda Rosenstock, MD, MPH
JAMA. 2006;295:2407-2410.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
Without fanfare or debate, a member of Congress places a rider on the omnibus appropriations bill enacted at the end of the Clinton Administration in late 2000.1 A new 2-sentence law, now known as the Data Quality Act (DQA),2 directs the administration's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide a potent mechanism for interested parties to change the way government agencies review science.3 The full impact of the act is as yet unknown, but it has already resulted in the significant delay of the release and use of valid scientific information. This new tool, to date used primarily by those who have reason to silence or politicize objective scientific research, should be cause for great concern and serious examination.
Focusing on Science as a Strategy to Subvert Policy
Unlike honest differences of scientific opinion, threats to science posed by vested interests—defined as those who for economic, ideological, political, or other reasons are committed to . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Author Affiliation: UCLA School of Public Health, Los Angeles, Calif.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Politics and science: a cautionary tale for the presidential candidates
Kamerow
BMJ 2008;337:a2093-a2093.
FULL TEXT
Response to Letters by Whiteley et al and Goldstein et al
Weintraub
Stroke 2006;37:2664-2665.
FULL TEXT
Plan B and the politics of doubt.
Davidoff and Trussell
JAMA 2006;296:1775-1778.
FULL TEXT
|
