The 131st Annual Meeting (November 15-19, 2003) of APHA

Abstract #71424

Lynn Goldman, MD, MPH, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Room 8511, Baltimore, MD 21205, 410-614-9301, lgoldman@jhsph.edu

The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that advisory bodies “…be fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and …not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interests.” In an editorial published in October 2002 in Science, ten distinguished academics and researchers, including Dr. Goldman, expressed their concerns about the misuse of these bodies in “Advice Without Dissent.” This editorial critiqued the Bush Administration’s use of federal advisory committees to forward its policy agenda by stacking the ranks of various advisory bodies with members whose bias supports the Administration’s antiregulatory views. This practice had led to growing concerns that rather than using the best available scientific evidence to inform public policy, these committees instead rely on bias and ideology to promote preconceived agendas and thus detrimentally impact our ability to protect the public’s health.

Learning Objectives:

• 3. Describe the role of scientifc advisory boards.
  7. Describe the impact of bias and politics in the development of public policy.

Keywords: Environmental Health, Public Health Policy

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.