PEORIA, Ill. -- Editorial about the Bush administration and science.

Every president's administration is political. It's the nature of the beast. That said, we're not sure anyone could compete with Karl Rove and a Bush administration that has hyper-politicized everything from war to
global warming.

Over the past six years, the threshold questions to any policy have been: What's in it for us? What's in it for the Republican Party?

The latest charge of undue, even damaging political interference from the White House comes from former Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona, who testified before Congress recently that the administration muzzled him from addressing topics such as stem-cell research, sex education, even the health hazards of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke. It was not uncommon for administration officials to attempt to alter the science if it didn't fit their preconceived ideology, he said.

There also was testimony to the effect that administration officials discouraged Carmona from attending a Special Olympics event because of the Kennedy family's connections to that charity. Meanwhile, Carmona said he was ordered to say President Bush's name three times on every page of his speeches.

It's one thing to take care of your oil company buddies in drafting energy policy or to jump between the EPA and potential logging industry votes in the Pacific Northwest, but it's quite another to intentionally mislead Americans who are making potentially life-and-death decisions about their health because it might upset the base, impact campaign contributions or, heaven forbid, cost you a few at the ballot box.

In addition to Carmona's testimony, Dr. C. Everett Koop, surgeon general in the Reagan administration, and Dr. David Satcher, his counterpart in the Clinton administration, also said that on one subject or another, they were pressured by the president's people to shape information that, in their view, became something less than honest. All three suggested changes are needed in the way the surgeon general is chosen and how the office is financed.

We'd say this: If the surgeon general can't be an independent advocate for the public's health, delivering information based upon the best and most unfiltered science available, what's the point of having one?

Meanwhile, America sure could use a leader who does the right things for the right reasons. It has been awhile.

Peoria (Ill.) Journal Star