Bush's Science Advisers Drawing Criticism

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

ASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — The Bush administration's choice of science advisers on matters varying from reproductive medicine to lead poisoning in children is drawing criticism from some Democrats in Congress, who complain that the advisers are being selected for their ideology and ties to industry rather than their scientific expertise.

At issue is how Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, and his staff are reconstituting the expert committees that advise Mr. Thompson and the agencies under his control. The experts are influential in shaping federal policy.

In a particularly controversial case, the Food and Drug Administration has asked an obstetrician-gynecologist who strongly opposes abortions to serve on the panel that reviews reproductive health drugs. The doctor, Dr. W. David Hager, teaches at the University of Kentucky and has written popular books asserting the healing power of faith in Jesus.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, meanwhile, is considering a toxicologist who has advised the lead industry for a panel weighing the contentious issue of whether the federal government should lower its acceptable limits of lead in the blood.

"The pattern of actions we are watching is troubling," Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, said in an interview. "It's one thing to have a political perspective, which all of us do. But we are going to be in trouble in this country if we start moving toward theology-based science or ideological research."

Mr. Thompson and his aides have defended their selections. In a letter this week to Senator Clinton and Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, Mr. Thompson denied that the administration uses a litmus test and said, "We will continue to recruit the best scientific minds to serve."

The issue also came up on Monday at the Senate confirmation hearing of Dr. Mark B. McClellan, President Bush's nominee for commissioner of food and drugs.

"Expertise and objectivity are important criteria for selection," Dr. McClellan told the committee, in response to a question from Senator Kennedy. But, he added, so is "diversity of viewpoints."

The committee changes come at a time when Mr. Thompson is restructuring the health and human services advisory system, which consists of 258 outside boards and panels. In any given year, Mr. Thompson said in his letter, his office can appoint roughly 450 people.

Last month, The Washington Post reported on a series of changes, including some involving a committee that advises the disease control centers on matters of environmental health. The article prompted the letter from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy. In a statement today, Mr. Kennedy argued that the administration was "stacking these committees with right-wing ideologues instead of respected scientists."

At the same time, Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, has been looking into the appointees to the centers' lead advisory panel. On Tuesday, Mr. Markey issued a report accusing the administration of "turning lead into gold" by replacing respected scientists with people with industry ties.

One scientist being replaced is Dr. Michael Weitzman, a pediatrician at the University of Rochester whose five-year term has expired. Dr. Weitzman, who has argued strongly that low levels of lead in the blood may be dangerous in children, said he was mystified as to why he was not reappointed.

"I've taken care of thousands of cases of lead poisoning, and am maybe the senior pediatrician currently still taking care of children and doing research on lead," Dr. Weitzman said. "I'm not a zealot. So why would you take somebody like me off?"

Mr. Markey was critical of Dr. Weitzman's removal. He also criticized the selection of Dr. William Banner, a pediatrician who is medical director of Oklahoma's poison control center. Dr. Banner has consulted with the lead industry in a Rhode Island lawsuit against lead paint manufacturers, and questions whether low lead levels are truly harmful.

In an interview, Dr. Banner said giving advice to industry should not disqualify him.

"I have spent over 20 years doing pediatrics, with my total committment to advocating for the health and safety of children," he said. "I personally don't care what industry thinks is best. We need to do what's best."

Also this week, women's health advocates began circulating a petition against Dr. Hager, the Kentucky obstetrician-gynecologist who has been asked to serve on the F.D.A.'s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, the panel that reviewed the abortion drug RU-486. Cynthia Pearson, executive director of the National Women's Health Network, argued that the selection was "dangerous and inappropriate."

Administration officials discounted reports that Dr. Hager had been asked to be the panel's chairman, saying no such decision had been made. Dr. Hager could not be reached today. His secretary said he was out of the office, and he did not reply to an e-mail message.

The reproductive health committee has not met for two years; F.D.A. officials said it currently had no members. "It was in dire need of being resuscitated," an official said.

That became especially apparent when studies raised questions about the value of hormone replacement drugs. Now the food and drug agency must decide whether such drugs should be relabeled. So it has set a meeting of the reproductive health committee for Nov. 12 and 13.

"We are bound and determined," one agency official said today, "to see that that happens, regardless of who is on the committee or not."