...Unfortunately, we found serious deficiencies in the NAS’s committee-selection process that could jeopardize the quality of future NAS reports.
The NAS has allowed numerous scientists (and others) with blatant conflicts of interest to sit on committees. Compounding that problem, those conflicts of interest usually are not disclosed to the public…
- Michael Jacobson, PhD
Executive Director
Center for Science in the Public Interest
[above from Preface]
STUDY FINDINGS:
1. A Failure to Eliminate Direct Conflicts of Interest
...
Among the 320 professionals on 21 NAS committees investigated by CSPI over the past three years, at least 56 (18 percent) had direct conflicts of interest.
Finding: Nearly one out of every five scientists appointed to an NAS panel has direct financial ties to companies or industry groups with a direct stake in the outcome of that study. This consistent pattern of appointing scientists with conflicts of interest clearly violates the spirit of the Federal Advisory Committee Act amendments that apply to NAS.
2. A Failure to Achieve Balance
Independent background checks by CSPI investigators found at least 66 scientists whose employment, significant and long-term financial relationships, published writings, think-tank membership, or courtroom testimony demonstrated pro-industry positions. On the other hand, only nine of the 320 scientists worked for or were closely identified through their writings or published studies with environmental or public interest groups.
Finding: NAS did a poor job of balancing points of view on a majority of the study panels examined. The NAS does not appear to consider information about potential bias or conflicts of interest prior to nominating individuals to a committee. As a result, about half the panels examined had scientists with identifiable biases who were not offset by scientists with alternative points of view.
3. A Failure to Disclose Information about Conflicts of Interest
Among the 320 scientists and other professionals examined in this study, nearly a fifth had some ties to industries that might be affected by the study. Yet the NAS revealed those ties to the public (via its website) in only 46 percent of those cases.
Finding: The NAS provides brief biographies of nominees to its committees on the agency’s website. Such biographies could assist people who were considering commenting on a committee’s composition. However, those biographies are woefully inadequate because, in a majority of cases, they fail to provide crucial data regarding conflicts of interest and points of view.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To achieve its stated goal of “ensuring independent, objective advice” for federal agencies, Congress, and the general public, the NAS should take the following steps:
- The NAS should expand its definition of conflicts of interest to include any financial ties within the past five years with companies that might be affected by the committee’s work, either directly or indirectly…
[above from pp. i-ii]
