Gruber's Failure to Disclose
MIT's Jonathan Gruber is one of the most respected health/public finance economists in the United States. He is widely quoted by those on both sides of the health care debate as an honest broker. So it's dissapointing to discover that he has had a $400,000 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services over the past year to evaluate health reform options. Details here.
It was foolish of Jon not to disclose this relationship because it calls his integrity into question. Henceforth, he will have to be identified in the media as an Obama administration adviser rather than being considered an independent analyst, albeit one who served in the Clinton administration's Treasury Department.
Addendum:
Gruber responds here and here. He claims he did disclose his contract and that his views on health reform were not influenced by the contract.
Ezra Klein, a strong supporter of the administration's health effort, says he was unaware of Gruber's contract but will note it in the future.
Megan McArdle expresses what I think is the consensus view:
"I certainly would not have written about him [Gruber] the same way, even though I am sure that what Gruber is saying comports with what he believes. My guess is that like me, most journalists would have treated him as an employee of the administration, with all the constraints that implies, rather than passing along his pronouncements as the thoughts of an independent academic."
Ron Brownstein comments here:
"Bottom line from my view: readers should have been aware of Mr. Gruber's relationship with the administration so they could make their own judgments on whether that would qualify or color their assessment of his analysis. Personally, I don't see evidence that he functioned as an advocate for the administration, rather than an analyst with his own distinctive views. Still readers should have been aware of the connection so they could have made that judgment for themselves, and I wish I had known about it during my conversations with him."
Kate Pickert of Time magazine comments here:
"Readers should know why journalists trust particular sources or if sources have even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Gruber's contract with the government is something that should have been widely understood."
Karen Tumulty defends Gruber here. Jake Tapper comments here.
I strenuously disagree.
I strenuously disagree. Since when has providing technical expertise to the government threatened anyone's independence? They are paying him to provide an estimate, not paying him to advocate a certain policy. The government has lot's of research contracts. These aren't payments for advocacy.
My guess is Gruber did research work for Bush's HHS as well - have you checked that out?
Perception
It's a question of perception, which is important, politically. If Jon is quoted as an independent MIT economist with no ax to gind and no financial stake in the debate, his words carry much weight. If he were instead to be quoted as a paid adviser to HHS they would carry much less because people would assume, rightly or wrongly, that we was simply saying what he was paid to say. That's just a fact of life.
But he's providing research,
But he's providing research, not advice. His contract is to provide estimates on the impact of a policy - positive evaluations, not normative suggestions.
I agree it is largely a question of perception. I'm not denying the fact that Gruber will probably get heat over this from the usual suspects. My point is that you're contributing to the distortion of that perception, and you should know better. People may end up perceiving "provision of estimates" with "provision of advice" - but you don't have to encourage that misconception.