>kneem posted- > >Peer Review Plan Draws Criticism >Under Bush Proposal, OMB Would Evaluate Science Before New Rules Take >Effect >(snip) > >At issue this time is a proposed rule -- technically a "bulletin," an OMB >term for legally binding language meant to guide federal agency actions >-- that would require a new layer of OMB-approved peer review of "any >scientific or technical study that is relevant to regulatory policy." > >John Graham, OMB chief of regulatory affairs and a prime architect of the >administration proposal, said: "Peer review in its many forms can be used >to increase the technical quality and credibility of regulatory science . >. . [and] protects science-based rulemakings from political criticism and <litigation." > >Scientists across the board say they agree with that. But because peer >review can also be subject to peer pressure, the question is who will do >it, and under whose control. > >Under the current system, individual agencies typically invite outside >experts to review the accuracy of their science and the scientific >information they offer -- whether it is the health effects of diesel >exhaust, industry injury rates, or details about the dangers of eating >beef that has been mechanically scraped from the spinal cords of mad >cows. > >The proposed change would usurp much of that independence. It lays out >specific rules regarding who can sit on peer review panels -- rules that, >to critics' dismay, explicitly discourage the participation of academic >experts who have received agency grants but offer no equivalent warnings >against experts with connections to industry. And it grants the executive >branch final say as to whether the peer review process was acceptable. > >The proposal demands an even higher level of OMB-approved scrutiny for >"especially significant regulatory information," a term defined in part >as any information relevant to an "administration policy priority" -- a >concept that William Schlesinger finds "alarming." > >The agencies implementing the plan -- the OMB and the Office of Science >and Technology Policy (OSTP) -- "are fundamentally political entities," >Schlesinger, president of the Ecological Society of America, which >represents 8,000 scientists in academia, government and industry, wrote >in a recent letter to the OMB. "It is critical that barriers between >federal science and politics remain in place. These guidelines appear to >weaken that vital divide." > >A separate concern is that the proposed process would create long delays. >After all, experts said, for all its elegant capacity to discern fact >from fiction, science rarely provides definitive answers. And regulations >in search of certainty may wait forever. > >"This is an attempt at paralysis by analysis," said Joan Claybrook, >president of Public Citizen, a government watchdog group that has also >questioned the legal basis of the OMB proposal. Much of the budget >agency's claim to authority over peer review comes from the Information >Quality Law -- a few lines of text slipped into the 2001 Treasury >appropriations bill that was never subject to congressional debate. > >"This is a huge attack on the health and safety regulatory process," >Claybrook said. > >Regulatory delays could prove deadly in the event of a public health >emergency, some doctors and scientists said. In recent years, for >example, the Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department >have had to act quickly to stop clinical trials in which medicines were >found to be causing harm or to announce that certain foods such as green >onions or tainted beef should be avoided or recalled.
I can see the pros and cons of moving to a peer review system. So many groups are moving to "evidence based" programming/decision making- that in some idealized ways this makes sense. I still have nightmarish thoughts that things like open heart surgery will be eliminated from insurance plans because there is no proof of extending the lifespan (just quality of life). It takes a long time to even begin to formulate data in some areas that are clearly "large effect" things. I recall the uproar that research was stopped midstream on some medical study about women and medicine (Debbie might recall-maybe related to cancer effects/tamoxifen??). Even thought it broke scientific study protocol the results were too clear to warrant not immediately informing the public, IIRC. I also see some of the struggling by various sides to use this strategy when it is relevant to their cause. I think this is a new kind of playing field and information control/what makes it into public record for decision makers. There is a fight going on now even about the National Advisory Committee on Ergonomics (NACE). Seems some groups think it is too pro ergonomic changes and others see it as too restrictive (is anybody happy?). Both sides threaten boycott... due to submissions with data not examined by "peers" or too much discussion of "physical factors", or disabuse of things already known about ergonomics. I guess we have to work even harder to be even better consumers of what we hear?? Dee _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
