Flawed Research Needs Oversight

February 8, 2000

The authors of a Cato Institute study argue that federally funded research frequently has been tainted by poor methodology, dubious analysis, faulty data, politicized conclusions and even borderline cases of fraud. Independent review of federal research is needed for both good science and good public policy, the study says

"The concern that flawed scientific research, immune from independent review, may be used to justify misguided and costly regulations is well grounded in fact," say authors Michael Gough and Steven Milloy. "Without independent review of scientific data and methodological practices, policy mistakes are inevitable. The history of public review of federally collected data and analyses reveals the important of such review in correcting errors made by government officials."

Several cases in which third-party review revealed shoddy science on which the government relied to justify rules and regulations are highlighted in the study. One is research on airborne asbestos funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, another is the National Cancer Institute’s research on the herbicide 2, 4-D and a third is the American Lung Association’s research on particulate matter.

"In many of those cases, third-party review served to correct or prevent costly regulatory mistakes. In some cases, however, independent review of federally funded science occurred too late to prevent significant economic and consumer harm," they write. "Requiring the government to `show its work’ opens up the regulatory process."

Cato is a libertarian think tank which opposes most government programs, even some that are relatively well accepted among conservatives.