larry
At 09:56 PM 1/26/2004, you wrote:
>Larry, good article, but scary. Thanks for posting. /Ben
>
> >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]
