Opening Statement By Chairman Brad Miller

The stated mission of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (“ATSDR”) “is to serve the public by using the best science, taking responsive public health actions, and providing trusted health information to prevent harmful exposures and disease related exposures to toxic substances.”

The relatively obscure federal government agency first came to this subcommittee’s attention a year and a half or so ago as a result of ATSDR’s health assessment for formaldehyde exposure by Katrina and Rita victims living in FEMA trailers. Government at all levels failed the victims of Katrina and Rita in many ways, but ATSDR’s failure was perhaps the most unforgivable. ATSDR’s health assessment certainly failed any test of scientific rigor, but ATSDR’s failure was worse than just jackleg science. ATSDR’s failure was a failure not just of the head but of the heart.

FEMA requested the health assessment to use in litigation, and requested that the assessment assume an exposure of less than two weeks, knowing that Katrina and Rita victims had already been exposed to formaldehyde fumes for more than a year and that there was no end in sight to their exposure. Stunningly, ATSDR’s report gave FEMA just what FEMA asked for.

FEMA touted the assessment to assure families living in the FEMA trailers that the formaldehyde fumes were nothing to worry about. Dr. Howard Frumkin, then and still the Director of ATSDR, will testify today. Dr. Frumkin held a dozen senior staff meetings on the formaldehyde issue over a six month period after ATSDR issued the flawed report in February 2007. Only after unflattering scrutiny congressional committees did ATSDR correct the health assessment.

Since then, this subcommittee has heard from many sources of other examples of jackleg science by ATSDR and a keenness to please industries and government agencies that prefer to minimize public health consequences of environmental exposures. Our sources have included outside scientists, residents of communities exposed to various chemicals, and ATSDR’s own scientists. One ATSDR staff scientist told our subcommittee staff “It seems like the goal is to disprove the communities’ concerns rather than actually trying to prove exposures.”

Today we will hear about a small number of the cases that have been called to our attention, and about problems at ATSDR that date from the agency’s creation.

Then there is the question what to do about ATSDR. When federal agencies fail in their mission, the problem is usually a lack of necessary resources. There is no reason to believe that more funding or more staff would result in anything other than a greater volume of jackleg assessments saying “not to worry.”

We hope the new Obama Administration will take a hard look at ATSDR. We may also consider legislative fixes. ATSDR was exempted from forced peer review for its “health assessments,” but the statute never forbid scientific review and the vast majority of ATSDR’s health reports do not go through independent review today. Most scientists see peer review as helpful, constructive criticism. ATSDR, on the other hand, apparently sees the opinions of outside scientists as unwelcome meddling. As a result, ATSDR’s research design and methodology is often flawed, according to other scientists, and ATSDR’s research is frequently not sound, accurate or complete. Perhaps Congress could require peer review by legislation. But it is hard to know how Congress can require ATSDR’s leadership to have the guts to resist political pressure and insist on scientific integrity.

The American people deserve better, and so do the many scientists at ATSDR who have dedicated their lives to protecting the public’s health, and devoutly wish that ATSDR faithfully and effectively perform the agency’s stated mission.