>http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/7788337.htm
>
>The Bush administration is determined to give new meaning to the term
>political science.
>
>While jabbering about "sound science," President Bush has packed
>advisory panels with ideological appointments, censored reports, and
>gagged government scientists.
>
>Now, an obscure administrative power grab, camouflaged as a scientific
>gold standard, will likely result in giving politics even more control
>over science.
>
>The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is tarnishing
>"peer review," a respected process routinely used by academic journals
>and government agencies. In peer review, knowledgeable scientists
>evaluate the soundness of one another's research.
>
>OMB, created in 1970 to advise the president on the federal budget,
>wants to micromanage who reviews studies emanating from all over
>government, from the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to
>the Environmental Protection Agency to the Nuclear Regulatory
>Commission.
>
>These numbers crunchers, who have no scientific expertise, have
>offered scant rationale for wresting oversight from career scientists.
>
>Perhaps worst of all, they have written bizarrre new
>conflict-of-interest rules for peer review that would disqualify some
>of the nation's best minds (because they got government research
>grants), while allowing industry-funded scientists to pack peer review
>panels. The pretext is scientific rigor, but the subtext is ideology.
>
>These new procedures could indefinitely bog down important rule-making
>that protects the health and safety of Americans.
>
>And perhaps that's the point.
>
>Industry has long denounced the nation's regulatory system,
>particularly when a study found a product unsafe or a chemical
>polluting. OMB's new policy would make it easier for the
>administration to quietly short-circuit rules by questioning the
>underlying science (already one of its favorite games).
>
>If that seems far-fetched, just look at who's lining up for and
>against the proposal. Proponents read like a who's-who of industry
>lobbyists (many of them Bush campaign contributors): the Edison
>Electric Institute, the American Petroleum Institute, Ford Motor Co.,
>National Cattlemen's Association, the Industrial Minerals Association
>of North America.
>
>The opposing side is a roll call of the nation's most esteemed
>scientists: the National Academies of Science, the American
>Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of American
>Scientists, the Association of American Medical Colleges, plus
>environmental, consumer and public-interest groups.
>
>In numerous public comments on the proposed change, scientists
>complain that OMB hasn't offered a single reason for reinventing a
>peer review system that wasn't broken.
>
>It is true that agency peer review policies are uneven. The EPA and
>Food and Drug Administration, for example, have detailed, multilayered
>procedures. The Department of Agriculture and Army Corps of Engineers,
>on the other hand, have no policies at all. But OMB could fix any
>problems without imposing this harmful "one-size-fits-all" directive.
>
>Foremost, agencies need flexibility. Not all scientific information
>requires the same level of time-consuming, expensive peer review. In
>some cases, simple internal review is, in fact, sufficient.
>
>Regardless of the level of review, the budget crunchers at OMB aren't
>the only watchdogs on the case.
>
>If questions are raised after a study comes out, agencies already have
>inspectors general to investigate. Congress can call in its detective,
>the General Accounting Office. Citizens and industry have recourse to
>sue.
>
>The American Public Health Association's biggest fear is this policy's
>"potential negative impact on public health and environmental
>regulation" - with good reason.
>
>Hidden in the policy is a subtle shift in emergency powers to OMB. In
>an "imminent health hazard," the administrator of OMB - not generally
>a public health expert - would determine when and whether to release
>information to the public.
>
>The White House tried this before, downplaying the air quality hazards
>in New York City after the collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept.
>11, 2001. And the OMB has been criticized for stopping the EPA from
>declaring a public health emergency over asbestos contamination in
>Montana.
>
>Decisions on potential crises - whether air quality, mad cow disease,
>SARS, anthrax or a nuclear plant accident - belong to experts focused
>on public health, far removed from the politics of the next election.
>
>The Bush administration is at it again. This policy isn't "sound
>science." It just sounds like science.
>
>--
>
>Larry C. Lyons
>
>========================================================
>Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts.
>========================================================
>Chaos, Panic and Disorder. My work here is done.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
