will now always be encased in those quote marks and scoffed at by everyone.
I suspect that the majority of the scientific community will choose to
distance themselves from being associated with such crap. Of course, there
will always be those that are more interested in advancing their own careers
than they are in good science and they will be the lapdog courtesans for the
self-apponted King Bush.
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 9:26 PM
Subject: science and the White House
> 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]
