In the later part of the first term of President George W. Bush, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) began an administrative process that resulted in a formal policy that compels all federal agencies to subject a tremendous proportion of their reports and documents to peer review. While similar in some ways to the EPA peer review system, it is far more sweeping, requiring that a huge quantity of federal “information” - including reports, pamphlets, web pages, perhaps even statements by federal officials - be subject to new levels of review before dissemination. The proposal went through two public comment periods, in which many individuals and organizations in the scientific as well as business communities voiced their opinions on the matter. The final formal policy was issued in December, 2004.

OMB’s “Peer Review and Information Quality" guidance for agencies was first proposed in August 2003. The proposal was overtly aimed at what some critics of federal regulatory authority call “regulation by information;” in explaining the proposal, Dr. John Graham, Director of OIRA and the signatory on the peer review proposal, asserted “that release of governmental information that has important impacts on the private sector, is in itself in some ways, a form of regulation.” (transcript of the Peer Review Standards for Regulatory Science and Technical Information Workshop, held on November 18, 2003)

Under the initial proposal, all covered information disseminated by an agency would undergo some form of peer review, and any information that might influence a major regulation, or that could have a “substantial impact” on public policies or private sector decisions with a possible impact of more than $100 million annually, would be put through a cumbersome system in which the information is reviewed by experts independent of the agency. The proposal required that agency-generated information undergo multiple time-consuming reviews before release. Moreover, the information (reports, web pages, etc,) would first have to be published in draft form and disseminated for public comment, after which it would be sent to a peer review panel, along with the public comments. The agency would then issue a formal response to the peer reviewers’ comments before the information could be re-disseminated. It was reasonable to conclude that application of this process could delay dissemination of information important in protecting that public’s health and environment.

Among one of the many troubling concerns with OMB’s original plan was the notably unbalanced conflict of interest provisions. Evidently assuming that financial support from an agency compromises the independent judgment of academic scientists, the proposal barred all scientists with a financial tie to an agency from participating in the review of agency documents. Because the proposal excluded those scientists whose research is funded by the agency involved, the result would have been to exclude many of the nation’s leading academic experts. In contrast, the proposal did not preclude industry-employed scientists from appointment to the panels.(1)

This initial attempt by the White House to impose government-wide peer review requirements was met with opposition from the environmental and public interest communities but also from an unexpected source: institutions representing mainstream science. Much of this opposition solidified at a November 2003 workshop convened at OMB’s request by the Science, Technology and Law program of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The workshop began with an address by Dr. Graham, who explained that the proposal was a “major priority” for the Bush Administration, asserting that peer review would improve the quality of regulations and information.

In response, speaker after speaker, all invited as experts in regulatory sciences by the NAS, warned that the OMB proposal would lead to increased costs and delays in disseminating information to the public and in promulgating health, safety, environmental and other regulations, while potentially damaging the existing system of peer review. Many of the speakers challenged OMB to identify a single report or regulation that would have been improved had the proposed peer review system been in place. Following the NAS meeting, the American Association of Medical Colleges, representing the nation’s schools of medicine, and the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, a federation of 22 scientific societies, sent a scathing letter of opposition to the White House, as did the Council on Government Relations, representing more than 150 leading US research universities (letter available here). Both the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) and the American Public Health Association (APHA) passed resolutions (AAAS resolution, APHA resolution) at their annual meetings opposing the peer review guidelines.

NAS President Bruce Alberts also joined the opposition to the proposal. In his letter, Dr. Alberts warned Dr. Graham that “the highly prescriptive type of peer review that OMB is proposing differs from accepted practices of peer review in the scientific community, and if enacted in its present form is likely to be counterproductive.”

In contrast, the proposal had the strong support of most of the major trade associations -- the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council -- plus a host of minor ones (e.g. the California Avocado Commission, the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, the National Funeral Directors Association). (Click here to view these and other letters of support.)

Notes:

(1) Robbins A. Science for Special Interests. The Boston Globe. January 2003.

Read more:

Background: Background on peer review of scientific information.

Peer review of regulatory science: Introduction to peer review of regulatory science.

Proposal revisions: Revisions to the proposal, published in April 2004, and the final proposal, published in December 2004. 

Additional Resources