Here's a must-read for anyone interested in the integrity of science, in the face both of post-modern hyperrelativism and of politically motivated distortion. It's a succinct op-ed in the L.A. Times co-written by Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science
"... we propose a combination of political activism and institutional reform. Congress needs to establish safeguards to protect the integrity of scientific information in Washington -- strong whistle-blower protections for scientists who work in government agencies would be a good start.We also need a strengthening of the government scientific advisory apparatus, starting with the revival of the Office of Technology Assessment. And we need congressional committees to continue with their investigations of cases of science abuse within the Bush administration, in order to learn what other reforms are necessary."
- Log in to post comments
?:
CRE's Regulatory Action
of the Week
Reg History
The National Academies? Report on Risk Assessment: Strong on Policy, Weak on Science
Imagine the outcry if the IPCC stated that its assessment of climate change was influenced by policy views. But that is exactly what the Academies' recent "Scientific Review" of the draft OMB risk assessment guidance advocates.
Congress has told OMB in the Data Quality Act to ensure that risk assessments are objective, a comparable directive is contained in the Academies' mission which states their internal ? review process is structured to ensure that each report is ?. objective.? If a report is to be objective, it can not contain biases inherent in policy judgments.
Notwithstanding the existence of a statutory directive reinforced by its own mission statement, the Academies' not only concluded that they are "troubled" (p. 63) by OMB's reliance on the legislative mandate contained in the DQA but they also concluded that policy views should play a critical role in risk assessments: "[The OMB bulletin] ignores without explanation the critical role that policy judgments play in risk assessments." (p. 15).
The Academies strongly support OMB's peer review guidance, and that guidance requires that peer review be limited to the science. Why in one instance does the Academies? oppose the co-mingling of science and policy and in the other support it?
One explanation is that Academies? reviewers of the OMB risk assessment guidelines wanted to maintain consistency with previous NRC reports which allow the co-mingling of science and policy; to accomplish this objective, the NAS had to first disavow the DQA to destroy the ?objectivity? requirement and second had to argue that agency scientists are in a better position to make policy decisions than are duly elected officials.
Read the Academies' criticism of OMB Risk Assessment Guidelines
Read the Academies' support for OMB Peer Review Guidelines
Jim Tozzi
Center for Regulatory Effectiveness http://thecre.com/
tozzi@thecre.com
202.265.2383
I had never heard about the CRE before. According to Wikipedia, the lobby organisation "has been criticised as a 'front organisation' for industries which seek to undermine the regulatory process, notably by Chris Mooney in his book The Republican War on Science.
Looks like the CRE are searching the web for references to Mooney.
Soon-to-be septuagenarian Jim Tozzi is an interesting character. Again according to Wikipedia, "Among his accomplishments was the successful recertification of an herbicide, atrazine, by the EPA, despite laboratory and field studies showing that the chemical is an endocrine disruptor that causes frogs to become hermaphroditic. ... He is currently working on many projects, including nationwide medical marijuana legalization."
Anybody fancy a stoned hermaphroditic frog?