White House relies on experts … who believe Bush is wrong

That the Bush administration opposes needle-exchange programs, despite their success in stemming the AIDS epidemic, is not a surprise. It’s the way the administration is opposing the programs that’s interesting.

The administration claims that the evidence for the effectiveness of needle exchange is shaky. An official who requested anonymity directed us to a number of researchers who have allegedly cast doubt on the pro-exchange consensus. One of them is Steffanie A. Strathdee of the University of California at San Diego; when we contacted her, she responded that her research “supports the expansion of needle exchange programs, not the opposite.” Another researcher cited by the administration is Martin T. Schechter of the University of British Columbia; he wrote us that “Our research here in Vancouver has been repeatedly used to cast doubt on needle exchange programs. I believe this is a clear misinterpretation of the facts.” Yet a third researcher cited by the administration is Julie Bruneau at the University of Montreal; she told us that “in the vast majority of cases needle exchange programs drive HIV incidence lower.” We asked Dr. Bruneau whether she favored needle exchanges in countries such as Russia or Thailand. “Yes, sure,” she responded.

That’s quite an accomplishment. The Washington Post questions the administration’s conclusions, so a Bush official directs the paper to three researchers — all of whom believe the administration is pursuing the wrong course. “Talk to these fine people … who will tell you what a terrible mistake we’re making.”

OK, never mind those scholars in the field, the administration says, look at a variety of supportive research papers.

The Bush administration attempted to bolster its case by providing us with three scientific articles. One, which has yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, was produced by an author unknown to leading experts in this field who is affiliated with a group called the Children’s AIDS Fund. This group is more renowned for its ties to the Bush administration than for its public health rigor: As the Post’s David Brown has reported, it recently received an administration grant despite the fact that an expert panel had deemed its application “not suitable for funding.” The two other articles supplied by the administration had been published in the American Journal of Public Health. Although each raised questions about the certainty with which needle-exchange advocates state their case, neither opposed such programs.

I can appreciate the fact that needle-exchange programs are highly controversial, and there may be legitimate policy rationales for opposing them. But this is nevertheless a perfect example of how the Bush gang approaches science and scholarly research — start with the answer and work backwards. When questioned, point to scholars who agree with you. When they disagree, point to policy research. When that’s debunked too, dismiss the whole debate and insist you’re right anyway.

Indeed, let this be a lesson to the White House: When challenged to defend a policy, ’tis better to ignore science than point to scientific evidence that doesn’t exist. Next time, forgo the reality-based community altogether; it’ll only disappoint the president.