It would be a mistake to think that the Bush Institute coming to SMU as part of the Bush Library will not affect students and faculty in the natural and physical sciences. For the past 20 years or so, it has become fashionable for policy analysts in Washington to take pot shots at scientists over findings they disagree with. However, the Bush administration has gone further. Some reports by government scientists have been altered by policy makers in the White House.On Feb. 18, 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a statement signed by 62 scientists, including 20 Nobel Laureates and 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science; it was titled “Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making.” Those who signed it charged the Bush Administration with manipulating “the process through which science enters into its decisions.” Among the offenses they cited are:-Placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees.-Disbanding existing advisory committees.-Censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists.-Simply not seeking independent scientific advice.The full text of the statement can be found at: www.americanprogress.org/kf/ucsstatement.pdf. The kind of bad behavior targeted by the statement seems to be acceptable to the Bush administration, and we should rightly guard against it being given an air of respectability on our campus in any shape or form. We should anticipate that some fellows of the Institute may well engage in such behavior. If the Institute is housed in the university or if fellows of the Institute receive joint or adjunct appointments at SMU or if SMU plays any role in the governance of the Institute, then the integrity of SMU’s science programs is at risk of being compromised.Policy makers and presidential hopefuls who are not themselves scientists have found ways to diminish public acceptance of scientific findings such as those on global warming. One approach is emotional, such as presenting themselves as experts in discriminating between what they term “junk science” and “sound science.” If you are confused by these terms, you are not alone. One set of definitions comes from Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber’s book “Trust Us, We’re Experts: How Industry Gambles With Your Future.”Junk science, they say, is the term that corporate defenders apply to any research, however rigorous, that justifies regulations to protect the environment and public health. The opposing term, sound science, is used in reference to any research, no matter how flawed, that can be used to challenge, defeat, or reverse environmental and public health.The integrity of SMU’s scientific degree and research programs should not be jeopardized by the presence on our campus of scientifically unqualified Institute analysts who set out to mislead the public with such ideas.

About the writer:Campbell Read is a professor emeritus of statisical science at SMU. He can be reached at cread@smu.edu.