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:
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:
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Now, Condie, one shouldn't poke fun at one's ancestors.
And it also produce a prototypical Progressive Liberal composite:
as well as a Libertarian:
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/
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/
“academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”
Poor squirrelly old priss is lacking in reading comprehension, obviously, Or, he missed the phrase in the law, "Prohibits federally registered lobbyists from being appointed to the Board.." That happens when one is the product of a liberal education, or accepts progressive articles at face value.
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.”
Pat Roberson will be the next GOP nominee.
The latest lunacy to promote holistic medicine is a war by conservatives to stamp out science.
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,
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?
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.
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."
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.
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."
____
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.
This will disallow anyone who has submitted a paper to a science journal on the subject from any input and pat Roberson will administer the hemlock if they say a word against the Republican hegemony.
This will disallow anyone who has submitted a paper to a science journal on the subject from any input and pat Roberson will administer the hemlock if they say a word against the Republican hegemony.
BS - it only disallows those who participated in the paper from being a reviewer.
Only those with brain removed may apply as advisers on the EPA board.
Only those with brain removed may apply as advisers on the EPA board.
_________________________________________________________________
Yes, this has been the problem with the global warming religion at the EPA and the peer reviewers for the Skeptical Science crew.
Only those with brain removed may apply as advisers on the EPA board.
You should apply then.
Again:
"Persons with substantial and relevant expertise are not excluded from the Board"
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.
No problem contendah, the review process should not include those who had a vested interest in the study.