On March 3, the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP) released the results of a two-year research effort to explore the working environment of federal scientists in the public health and environmental fields. The results showed that not only is there political interference in their work, but that scientists also faced a series of obstacles that delay the study and dissemination of scientific information that affects the public every day.

Recent findings indicate a consultant to a federal reproductive health sciences panel also has industry ties, creating a conflict of interest. The controversy raises concerns about scientific integrity in the federal regulatory process, as well as contractor transparency and responsibility.

Shortly before the holidays, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a final version of its bulletin to establish government-wide requirements for when and how federal agencies use scientific peer review. The final bulletin makes modest changes to the revised proposal that OMB published April 28, 2004 which only allowed a 30-day comment period. OMB’s announcement did not explain the seven-month delay until just before the holiday season, when many academics, scientists and public interest groups concerned with the policy were away on vacations.