The Bush administration's influence on the CDC is too restrictive, experts warn.

Just as a new European agency steps into the battle against infectious diseases, its much larger US counterpart is responding to charges that it prioritizes politics over science. Staff at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are also reportedly chafing under a reorganization initiated by the Bush administration.

A report released in early March on theUS smallpox vaccination program took aim at the apparent influence of the White House on CDC policies (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309095921/html/). A National Academy of Sciences committee reported that political constraints, presumably from the “top levels of the executive branch,” contributed to poor coordination and low acceptance of the program.

“We feel that the CDC is too important and historically has been too well respected to risk its credibility in this way,” says Brian Strom, committee chair and professor of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania.

We feel that the CDC is too important and historically has been too well respected to risk its credibility in this way. , Brian Strom, University of Pennsylvania

The report concluded that the healthcare community and the public never bought into the vaccination program because the government's rationale for the vaccinations was not fully explained. “The typically open and transparent communication from CDC ... seemed constrained by unknown external influences,” the committee said.

CDC spokesman Tom Skinner says any suggestion that the CDC was “constrained or muzzled in its ability to communicate is “totally unfounded and totally untrue.”

The report was released at the same time as a Washington Post news report detailing internal dissent at the CDC, including concern about the agency's 'Future's Initiative.' The reorganization is designed to improve the CDC's ability to respond to public health concerns such as bioterrorism, the aging population, obesity and emerging infectious diseases, and involves a major administrative reshuffling.

Discontent among CDC staff has become intertwined with the perception of political interference, says Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. “It is important thatpolitical leadership understand how imp-ortant it is for science-based organizations to be free of political influence,” he says. “Even the perception of political interference can be devastating to good science.”