Slashdot Mirror
Scientist Removed From EPA Panel Due To Industry Opposition
Beeftopia writes "The relationship between regulator and regulated is once again called into question as industry pressure leads to a scientist's removal from an EPA regulatory panel. From the article: 'In 2007, when Deborah Rice was appointed chair of an Environmental Protection Agency panel assessing the safety levels of flame retardants, she arrived as a respected Maine toxicologist with no ties to industry. Yet the EPA removed Rice from the panel after an intense push by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry lobbying group that accused her of bias. Her supposed conflict of interest? She had publicly raised questions about the safety of a flame retardant under EPA review.'"
You can't have a SCIENTIST on a panel about pollution! It interfere's with Gawd's Will!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
* That's Neil Gawd, CEO of Toxic Shit Enterprises, of course.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Stop putting anti-industry, anti-energy zealots on EPA panels.
Rice's travails through the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, program reveal the flip side of industry's sway. Not only does the ACC back many scientists named to IRIS panels, it also has the power to help remove ones it doesn't favor.
So... what's the pre-flip good side of the industry's sway?
Can't they just say -- industry has full control and can both nominate people they like and cut out people they do not like.
Toxic Shit Enterprises was founded in order to research the possibility of creating a line of humans that would actually fit into airline seats, by virtue of having arms and legs on only one side. Although attempts have been moderately successful, unfortunately there's been a problem trying to get the new strains to breed true. Consequently, some 2nd generation offspring only fit into the new Indian subcompacts.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Brought to you by the country with legalized bribery.
The summary makes it seem like this just happened, but she was actually removed back in 2007. Why is this coming up now, 6 years later?
American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry lobbying group that accused her of bias. A what? An industry lobbying group? Oh thank the heavens someone without any bias was there to moderate proceedings and ensure that objective and measured assessments were being made.
Lobbying is great. It means if you have tons of money you have influence. As long as your corporate or social structure brings in piles of cash you can have dominant political power. I wonder how different the political landscape would look if you removed lobbying and campaign contributions and campaign war chests from play.
Seems to me that the government oversight of anyl product should be a confidential process.
Do peer reviewers of scientific papers come out and call something great or bad during the review process?
Do auditors come out and give off the cuff remarks about what they are seeing during the audit?
So if there are rules that say she she should keep her trap shut during the review process then she should be removed since it shows a proclivity to substitute her opinion for that of the review panel.
If not, then there should be. The review process is a process and if it is to be legitimate, then you have to follow the process. Otherwise, why have it all?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
How or why does this apply to ./?
Last year, the Chicago Tribune ran an incredible series of investigative articles on the dangers of flame retardant chemicals and the extent to which industries profit from their manufacturing (http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html). In light of their unfortunate conclusions, this report is hardly surprising.
The EPA's function is more to give the common fool the idea that the government cares about the environment, than it is to defend the environment. It is quite similar to the FDA in this regard. Both agencies have been headed by flacks from the industries they are supposed to be regulating, which is a clear conflict of interest.
Just another classic case of corruption in the government.
I don't think this is such a big issue. If someone who is a judge has publicly espoused opinions on a case by case level regarding the Constitutionality, they are likely going to be viewed as biased. The reason for this is very important: we want to be assured of government officials not coming into a job with bias. We want to them to decide ON the job, on a case by case basis while acting in the official capacity of the position, with the ALL the facts that someone in THAT position is privy to. If they come into a situation already espousing that they've decided the truth, it can come into a situation with a decision of what needs to happen, when they haven't considered the facts in each case.
We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
That name seems to be cursed
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Every single one of those scientists is not only biased, but has a substantial conflict of interest. All of them are carbon-based lifeforms that will react negatively to a wide range of chemicals such as mercury, arsenic and practically every petrochemical in existence. The EPA should clear the entire regulatory panel and re-staff it with robots who will only take their charge from a power source that will not be disclosed to them. Ideally their finishes should also be solvent-resistant and UV-stable and their cooling system capacity should be generous.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
A) Cover up!
or
B) No one cares...
Since this is Slashdot, I'll go with option A.
Just because she was removed does not mean they are trying to cover up anything or the ever popular theory of "That company runs the world and they dont want any challengers because they want their money!".
Im amazed at how fucking stupid americans are when it comes to this stuff. Everyone believes everything is a conspiracy theory, or some big powerful company controls everything. She was removed, it happens hundreds of times a day in this country from mcdonalds to the white house staff. People dont do their job, they get lazy, they steal shit from work, they cause undue tension and problems in the work place, they drink, they do drugs and so on but youll never see a company actually say that they fired a person for that kind of stuff because they dont want to be sued. But those are the cause of Id guess 98% of all removals from the work place each year, so the chances of one of those being hers is pretty damn high.
But people love to gossip too much and assume too much when they werent actually personally involved in it. They just (laughably) read about it on the internet.
I'd better buy a gun since we don't seem to have a function government at this time.
Just look at how much government policy is about protecting corporate profits. More often than not the people writing the rules work for the companies the rules cover. Tell me how hiding health concerns benefits the public? We need more people like this scientist not fewer! For everyone they fire ten more will think twice about standing up to the corporations.
let's keep that on the lo-lo.
The lack of any logic whatsoever wins again. Bravo guv'ment.
I would just like to take this opportunity to remind die-hard libertarians that the solution is not to do away with these agencies that are supposed to provide oversight. It is to change the appointment rules and process so that the people who are appointed cannot have worked in the industry within a certain amount of time, and cannot have any conflict of interest with the industry (e.g. close relative is an industry exec).
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
I would hold a scientist on a review panel to the same standard as I would a jury. If the jury members made statements about the guilt or innocence of a defendant before the trial was over they wold be removed from the jury. The same thing applies to a review panel. The review is not over and the evidence is not complete yet someone is make statements about the safety of the chemicals under review. I have nothing to do with the chemical industry but I would want that scientist removed.
There is a catch 22 in not hiring from industry. On one hand they may be influenced by industry. On the other hand they are the people who know most about the industry. Would you really want regulations being made by someone with no experience in the industry? That is a recipe for bad legislation.
If anything it should be the other way around. That someone who has worked in a regulatory area can not work for industry for a certain period of time.
The EPA is full of leftist communist activists. Why do we need another one? Glad she's gone.
an ill wind that blows no good
I would like to take this opportunity to remind die-hard statists that almost all of these agencies end up serving the interests of those companies that they are supposed to be regulating, eventually. Proposing that the very people (congress) who are paid off by large agribusinesses make laws that hurt their employers is the height of statist delirium.
I mean, sure, it sounds good to have non-flacks heading these agencies, but it just can not be done without a very complete reform of the election process.
In any event, a vindication of the libertarian philosophy could be seen in organic labeling standards. USDA Organic has been diluted into complete worthlessness as a standard, but there are independent companies that still certify organic foods in a more reliable and honest manner. This model works, unlike the statist model where the government becomes teacher, mother, secret lover.
It's not really a catch 22. People from the industry are in a revolving door system, where they go work in these agencies for a while and then get bonuses and better positions based upon how much work they did for the company while in government.
I could see hiring from industry, if you then banned subsequent participation or investment in that industry. Including spouses. As it stands now, hiring from industry ensures that nothing useful gets done, except those things useful for the industry itself. This applies to agriculture, big pharma, manufacturing, etc.
Industry employees are more trustworthy than government bureaucrats.
You can't have someone with a sense of right and wrong in an agency like the EPA... That would completely unbalance the industry!
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
(seriously, read it, and pressure congress to fix it)
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
Not hiring from industry ensures that armatures make critical decisions.
So we both agree that the revolving door must stop. Coming out of industry should be easy; getting back in should be hard. Regulators need experience in how industry works so they can understand how to write solid regulations that industry can not get around.
Please be careful with using absolutes like "nothing". There are many regulations that get enacted that industry does not like. Some things do get done. Using absolutes that are easily disproved just weakens the argument.
I will use absolutes when necessary, and in this case there is nothing useful that revolving door industry flacks will accomplish in their tenures in government.
It would be better to use rank amateurs and observation of the sleaze tactics, along with abilities to enforce and odify regulations to keep up with side stepping, than it would be to put experienced industry flacks and shills in charge of these ever more laughable agencies. The current policies are fraudulent bordering upon treasonous.
It look like this was all a political play.
The industry waited until she was finished her work and tried to use it to discredit the EPA and delay any action on the chemical. They were trying to buy more time to pile in the cash.
The EPA played this the best way they could, by removing her and her reports from the review and try to keep things moving forward.
I don't think she was looking at the big picture.. the EPA lives on the border of science and politics. They cut her out of the study to keep it moving forward. Hopefully her story can now be used to go in and reduce the industry influence on future studies.
She's done a lot of good. Her work on the scientific side has resulted in protecting the public and advancing science. Now maybe her story can help clean up the politics too.
I hate politics as much as anyone.. but it's still there and always will be. It's part of who we are.