Last month we commented on a new policy by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that would require the approval of HHS officials for scientists to be allowed to speak with the World Health Organization. Yesterday’s Washington Post carried an article with some new information on the HHS policy. The Post writes,

“The Department of Health and Human Services and the World Health Organization have reached a compromise on the controversial issue of who gets to name U.S. government scientists to serve as advisers to the Geneva-based organization. The trouble is that the two sides have nearly opposite views of what the compromise means. WHO has agreed to send invitations to specific scientists through the U.S. government, rather than to contact the experts directly. This arrangement, largely a matter of protocol, is one the organization has with China, Russia and a few other of its 192 member countries. HHS officials, however, believe WHO has acceded to its request that the U.S. government be allowed to “identify an appropriate expert who can best serve both of our organizations” after WHO provides a general description of the expertise it is seeking.”

There appears to be an intractable different in roles for U.S. government scientists according to the directives of both HHS and WHO. Here is how the Post characterizes the situation:

“William R. Steiger, HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson’s special assistant for international affairs … noted that federal employees “do not and cannot” participate as individuals but “serve as representatives of the U.S. government at all times and advocate U.S. government policies.” In a response written earlier this month, [Denis G. Aitken, an assistant director general of WHO] noted that a WHO regulation requires that members of advisory panels “shall act as international experts . . . they may not request or receive instructions from any government.” (WHO staff, and people lent long-term to the organization by governments, must swear a similar oath of independence.)”

So the U.S. says that government scientists cannot participate as individuals but as government representatives, while the WHO says that its advisors must participate as individuals and not as government representatives. No middle ground there.

Of course selection of scientists to participate in WHO activities could just as easily be motivated by political considerations within WHO as in HHS. This issue will likely boil down to support for WHO to select HHS scientists from those who support the WHO’s political perspectives and support for HHS to choose scientists from those who support the Administration’s politics. In either case, this situation would seem to delegitimize the role of science in health discussions, because it creates a perception (if not reality) that scientists will be selected by WHO or HHS according to their political perspectives.

It seems to me that the compromise I proposed last month makes even more sense today:

“I am sure that many reactions to the HHS policy will focus on trying to “let scientists talk about science” or somehow cleanly separate out science from politics. Of course, such clean separation is not possible. It seems to me that if the Administration wishes to place government scientists on a tighter leash (and it is not clear to me why this would be necessary), then a policy that would be more legitimate would allow WHO to choose HHS experts, but require these government scientists to acknowledge the official U.S., government policy on a particular topic whenever they discuss specific policy issues related to their expertise.”