Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by prissy442:

House Republicans just passed a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on their own research         http://www.salon.com/2014/11/1..._their_own_research/


Not even close:
EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013 - Amends the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to revise the process of selecting members of the Science Advisory Board, guidelines for participation in Board advisory activities, and terms of office. (The Board provides scientific advice to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA].) Prohibits federally registered lobbyists from being appointed to the Board.
Revises the procedures for providing advice and comments to the Administrator by:
(1) including risk or hazard assessments in the regulatory proposals and documents made available to the Board, and
(2) requiring advice and comments to be included in the record regarding any such proposal and published in the Federal Register. Revises the operation of Board member committees and investigative panels to:
(1) require that they operate in accordance with the membership, participation, and policy requirements (including new requirements for public participation in advisory activities of the Board) contained in this Act;
(2) deny them authority to make decisions on behalf of the Board; and
(3) prohibit direct reporting to EPA. Adds guidelines for the conduct of Board advisory activities, including concerning:
(1) avoidance of making policy determinations or recommendations,
(2) communication of uncertainties,
(3) dissenting members' views, and
(4) periodic reviews to ensure that such activities address the most important scientific issues affecting EPA. Prohibits this Act from being construed as supplanting the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act or the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

Originally Posted by prissy442:

In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

________________________________________
No, it states just the opposite,  

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by prissy442:

In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

________________________________________
No, it states just the opposite,  

___________________

 

The bill contains this provision:

 

"Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve re-

view and evaluation of their own work; "

 

Thus, a Board member from the industry side can instigate an "advisory activity" that includes--or that has as its basic purpose--the attempted discrediting  of the work of a respected scientist on the Board, but the scientist would be prohibited from offering rebuttal .  How can that kind of lopsided arrangement contribute to a candid and thorough review of the science involved in the Board's review of issues before it?

Originally Posted by Contendah:

A coalition of social scientists and computer graphics experts recently combined their talents  to produce a composite graphic representative of the typical radical right wing throwback.  Here is the product of that endeavor:

 

 

Ah the tolerant left rises again and again.  Funny they are the ones quickly to call names and post ridiculous posts but call themselves enlightened.  They are already claiming the GOP has two years to fix the mess left in the wake of prior majority, all the while still blaming Bush I, II and Reagan for their failures.

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by prissy442:

In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

________________________________________
No, it states just the opposite,  

___________________

 

The bill contains this provision:

 

"Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve re-

view and evaluation of their own work; "

 

Thus, a Board member from the industry side can instigate an "advisory activity" that includes--or that has as its basic purpose--the attempted discrediting  of the work of a respected scientist on the Board, but the scientist would be prohibited from offering rebuttal .  How can that kind of lopsided arrangement contribute to a candid and thorough review of the science involved in the Board's review of issues before it?


The key phrase is "review and evaluation"

 

An independent review would exclude any parties involved in the creation of the report/study as having them present could cause a preconceived mindset.  If the study cannot stand up to scrutiny, it should be ignored.

 

Paragraph (C) of the bill specifically states:  "Persons with substantial and relevant expertise are not excluded from the Board due to affiliation with or representation of entities that may have a potential interest in the Board’s advisory activities, so long as that interest is fully disclosed to the Administrator and the public and appointment to the Board complies with section 208 of title 18, UnitedStates Code."

 

https://www.congress.gov/113/b...ILLS-113hr1422rh.pdf

Last edited by Mr. Hooberbloob

Pat Roberson could be on the board and claim God came in the middle of the night, spoke to him and reassured him climate change was of the devil. The same thing is going on in medicine. Instead of being scientists these practitioners of holistic and integrative medicine are becoming shaman in your nearest hospital and discouraging the scientific method for medical research. Bleeders and TV evangelists will take over medical practice.

Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by prissy442:

In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

________________________________________
No, it states just the opposite,  

___________________

 

The bill contains this provision:

 

"Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve re-

view and evaluation of their own work; "

 

Thus, a Board member from the industry side can instigate an "advisory activity" that includes--or that has as its basic purpose--the attempted discrediting  of the work of a respected scientist on the Board, but the scientist would be prohibited from offering rebuttal .  How can that kind of lopsided arrangement contribute to a candid and thorough review of the science involved in the Board's review of issues before it?


The key phrase is "review and evaluation"

 

An independent review would exclude any parties involved in the creation of the report/study as having them present could cause a preconceived mindset.  If the study cannot stand up to scrutiny, it should be ignored.

 

Paragraph (C) of the bill specifically states:  "Persons with substantial and relevant expertise are not excluded from the Board due to affiliation with or representation of entities that may have a potential interest in the Board’s advisory activities, so long as that interest is fully disclosed to the Administrator and the public and appointment to the Board complies with section 208 of title 18, UnitedStates Code."

 

https://www.congress.gov/113/b...ILLS-113hr1422rh.pdf

____

The problem here, Hoob, is that within the context of the bill, as written,the term "their own work" can not be interpreted as limited to the work products that Board members produce while working on Board matters.  Left undefined, the term could well include technical reports and research that a Board member produced in government or academia even before being appointed to the Board.  It is too broad and too ill-defined (actually UN-defined) to remove that kind of interpretation. There might be something in the legislative history of the bill that would clarify this point, but I am not privy to such information.  In two prior vocational incarnations, I reviewed  legislation in behalf of two federal agencies and prepared comments for agency heads to submit to the Congress.  I became all too aware of what can happen when legislation on critical points is later found  in the courts to be ambiguous and thus required clarification by the court's after-the-fact opinion. Well-crafted legislation 

requires no such judicial second-guessing.

Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

Again:

 

"Persons with substantial and relevant expertise are not excluded from the Board"

____

"Not excluded from the Board" is one thing, but when the bill says THIS:

 

 

"Board members [i.e.  persons ON THE BOARD, therefore NOT excluded from iit] may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own work; "

 

AGAIN:

 

 

The problem here, Hoob, is that within the context of the bill, as written,the term "their own work" can not be interpreted as limited to the work products that Board members produce while working on Board matters.  Left undefined, the term could well include technical reports and research that a Board member produced in government or academia even before being appointed to the Board.  It is too broad and too ill-defined (actually UN-defined) to remove that kind of interpretation. There might be something in the legislative history of the bill that would clarify this point, but I am not privy to such information.  In two prior vocational incarnations, I reviewed  legislation in behalf of two federal agencies and prepared comments for agency heads to submit to the Congress.  I became all too aware of what can happen when legislation on critical points is later found  in the courts to be ambiguous and thus required clarification by the court's after-the-fact opinion. Well-crafted legislation 

 

requires no such judicial second-guessing.

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×