John Marburger - Bush Administration

Bush Administration

In September 2001, Marburger became Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy under George W. Bush. His tenure was marked by controversy as he defended the Bush Administration from accusations that political influence was distorting scientific research in federal agencies and that scientific evidence was being suppressed or ignored in policy decisions, especially on the topics of abstinence-only birth control education, climate change policy, and stem cell research. Marburger defended the Bush Administration from these accusations, saying they were inaccurate or motivated by partisanship, especially on the issue of science funding levels. Marburger continued to be personally respected by many of his academic colleagues.

Marburger's tenure as Director was the longest in the history of that post. After the September 11 attacks, he helped to establish the DHS Directorate for Science and Technology within the new Department of Homeland Security. He has been called a central player opposing new restrictions of international scientific exchanges of people and ideas after the attacks. He later was responsible for reorienting the nation's space policy after the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, and played an important part in the nation's re-entry into the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor program. Marburger was also known for his support of the emerging field of science of science policy, which seeks to analyze how science policy decisions affects a nation's ability to produce and benefit from innovation.

In February 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a report accusing the Bush administration of manipulating science for political purposes, listing more than 20 alleged incidents of censoring scientific results or applying a litmus test in the appointment of supposedly scientific advisory panel members. In April 2004, Marburger published a statement rebutting the report and exposing errors and incomplete explanations in it, and stating that "even when the science is clear—and often it is not—it is but one input into the policy process," but "in this Administation, science strongly informs policy." The Union of Concerned Scientists issued a revised version of their report after Marburger's statement was published. Marburger also called the reports conclusions illusory and the result of focusing on unrelated incidents within a vast government apparatus, and attributed the controversy as being related to the upcoming elections. It was noted that Marburger enjoyed a close personal relationship with President Bush, with White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua Bolten attesting to his active involvement within the administration.

Marburger responded to criticism of his support for Bush Administration policies in 2004, stating "No one will know my personal positions on issues as long as I am in this job. I am here to make sure that the science input to policy making is sound and that the executive branch functions properly with respect to its science and technology missions." On the topic of stem cell research, he in 2004 said that stem cells "offer great promise for addressing incurable diseases and afflictions. But I can’t tell you when a fertilized egg becomes sacred. That’s not my job. That’s not a science issue. And so whatever I think about reproductive technology or choice, or whatever, is irrelevant to my job as a science adviser." However, in February 2005, in a speech at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, he stated, "Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.... I don't regard intelligent design as a scientific topic."

Sherwood Boehlert, the Republican chair of the House Committee on Science during most of Marburger's tenure, said that "the challenge he faced was serving a president who didn't really want much scientific advice, and who let politics dictate the direction of his science policy... and he was in the unenviable position of being someone who had earned the respect of his scientific colleagues while having to be identified with policies that were not science-based." On the other hand, Robert P. Crease, a colleague of his at Stony Brook University, characterized him as someone who " to the White House as a scientist, not an advocate. He refused to weigh in on high-profile, politically controversial issues, but instead set about fixing broken connections in the unwieldy machinery by which the government approves and funds scientific projects.... Some bitterly criticized him for collaborating with the Bush administration. But he left the office running better than when he entered."