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.'"

Comments

Well, YEAH!

[fyngyrz]

You can't have a SCIENTIST on a panel about pollution! It interfere's with Gawd's Will!

Re:Well, YEAH!

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes no sense. How can you say it interferes with God's will if he made the world itself? That would be counterproductive. Obviously, there real reson is money... and money is very important. Some times, it's more important than the environment

Re:Well, YEAH!

[L4t3r4lu5]

UK Govt did this with Dr David Nutt.

Govt: Dr Nutt, go do research into how dangerous drugs are and report back. We need more strings to the War on Drugs bow.
Dr Nutt: Drugs aren't as bad as you people make out. These stats clearly show some interesting things, E.g. You are more likely to die riding a horse than from an E overdose, and there have been no deaths directly attributed to overdose on cannabis in the entire documented history of mankind.
Govt: Oh! Oh, wow... This is embarassing. You're fired.

(Obviously satirical, but cite and cite. Not original sources, but I'm sure you educated types can follow the paper trail.)

note

[fyngyrz]

* That's Neil Gawd, CEO of Toxic Shit Enterprises, of course.

Huh?

[Mitreya]

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.

And today's story is

[lesincompetent]

Brought to you by the country with legalized bribery.

Summary is Misleading

[AdamStarks]

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?

Re:Summary is Misleading

[AdamStarks]

You have to get to the 4th paragraph of the actual article before it's explicitly stated that all this happened 6 years ago. The summary is vague enough that one could easily be led to think she was appointed in 2007 and only recently removed. It should have been more specific.

And my question was actually a question, not a snarky jab. I'm legitimately curious why this is being brought up now. Is there currently a wave of exposure for the shady maneuvers of Environmental lobbyists? Or is it just a slow enough news day that someone has to reach back 6 years to find something controversial?

Re:Summary is Misleading

[mcelrath]

Because a study of those chemicals was recently completed, and guess what? She was right and they're really harmful to humans. California is now overhauling their rules on use of the stuff...

Re:Summary is Misleading

[Sentrion]

Actually, those chemicals are only harmful to delicate Californians. Here in Texas we have oil running through our veins, along with lead, mercury, arsenic, and many other colorful elements, so we've adapted to be tough enough to take on most of the cancer causing pollutants industry can throw at us. Sure, natural selection is still working through its slow process so we expect many bizarre birth defects and mutations, but we're convinced we will be much fitter after all is said and done.

Re:Summary is Misleading

[Livius]

So, she was fired for bias but now it turns out that her alleged bias was based on reality.

Clearly she had the wrong kind of bias.

Re:Summary is Misleading

[AdamWill]

Footer reads:

"Toxic Influence is an ongoing series of reports exploring the nexus between industry, science and policy. This story is being produced in partnership with the Center for Public Integrity."

Basically, they're digging through recent history to find questionable stuff that wasn't really highlighted at the time.

Re:Summary is Misleading

[icebike]

is it just a slow enough news day that someone has to reach back 6 years to find something controversial?

Careful reading of the story shows no obvious reason this is being trotted out now. Perhaps there is another push to oust someone
else going on behind the scenes that we are not aware of.

But the story does hint at a less controversial reason for the removal, in that as a federal official, she was in charge of
essentially propping up her own work, previously done at the state level.

I think one of the comments on TFA said it best:

Also conflicts of interest are not necessarily simply personal. There are also institutional conflicts of interest.

" In Maine, Rice's research had supported a state ban on the chemical."

Now Rice Chairs a similar review at a federal level. For federal researchers, voting on any research protocol regarding a chemical when also having been in a principal investigator position regarding the same protocol regarding that chemical (or supervising those voting on the protocol/supervising the principal investigators on) is an ethics violation.

In short, there is valid reasons for this action to have been taken. Imagine, if you will, that a chemical was being voted for APPROVAL, instead of being banned. Imagine further that a researcher who did all the studies about safety on this chemical sat on and chaired the approval committee. Would we want that to be allowed? Wouldn't people be screaming about that pretty loudly?

The American Chemical Council has no particular dog in this fight. Flame retardant is simply one of thousands of chemicals covered by this organization which has members in hundreds of different companies. I doubt flame retardant is even a blip on their radar. Yet the story makes it out as if this organization exists solely to make sure this flame retardant is not banned.

In actuality, "The EPA itself had raised concerns -- ones so significant that in late 2009 the agency and several chemical companies agreed to phase out its production." Presumably these several chemical companies were already members of the American Chemistry Council.

One could also take the position that a strictly ethical researcher would not have accepted an appointment to a panel investigating the very work that he/she pioneered. And, at the very least, would not have accepted the CHAIR of such a panel. Its sort of like doing your own peer reviews.

In short, I think your assessment of digging for controversy where none exists is spot on.

Re:Summary is Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, those chemicals are only harmful to delicate Californians and those tree hugging liberals in Austin. Here in Texas we have oil running through our veins, along with lead, mercury, arsenic, and many other colorful elements, so we've been blessed by the almighty to be tough enough to take on most of the cancer causing pollutants industry can throw at us. Sure, intelligent design is still working through its slow process so we expect many bizarre birth defects and mutations, but we're convinced we will be much fitter after all is said and done.

There, as an Austinite, I fixed that for you.

Re:Summary is Misleading

[TapeCutter]

It isn't actually necessary for public institutions to be populated with rabid activists for the public to be protected.

The US seems to suffer this problem more than other western nations, it's full of rabid pro-industry "activists".

The process worked despite her removal.

And came to the same conclusion. Being pro-reality does not equate to being anti-industry.

reckless fools like her

Her research was impartial and correct, there is not a shred of evidence that she is a "rabid activist". She did what a public servant is supposed to do, she "spoke truth to power", unfortunately the system is such that she was basically talking to herself. That's not her fault, that's the fault of the system that offers the job. Have they fixed that, or did they just give the position to the next person who came through the "revolving door"?

She still works for the US government.

Good, that institution is in dire need of a reality check. If you want to rid the EPA of corruption, then you should start by sacking this guy

Re:Summary is Misleading

[Uberbah]

Wait. You typed this:

In short, there is valid reasons for this action to have been taken. Imagine, if you will, that a chemical was being voted for APPROVAL, instead of being banned. Imagine further that a researcher who did all the studies about safety on this chemical sat on and chaired the approval committee. Would we want that to be allowed? Wouldn't people be screaming about that pretty loudly?

And this:

The American Chemical Council has no particular dog in this fight. Flame retardant is simply one of thousands of chemicals covered by this organization which has members in hundreds of different companies.

In the same breath? With a straight face?

American Chemistry Council accused her...

[VinylRecords]

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.

Public Comments

[sycodon]

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?

Re:Public Comments

[mapsjanhere]

If it's a scientific review panel, you're supposed to review the evidence presented, not (ab)use your position on the panel to publicly promote your own opinion. We all have preconceived notions on most subjects, but in science you're supposed to be able to set those aside and fairly review new evidence. If you can't do that, you're in the wrong place for peer review.

Re:Public Comments

[riverat1]

Was she biased or just more knowledgeable and ahead of everyone else on the subject? Subsequent research has borne out her statements.

Sadly unsurprising

[Bysmuth]

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 has always been headed by industry flacks.

[RocketRabbit]

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.

Let me play Devil's Advocate.

[briancox2]

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.

Re:Let me play Devil's Advocate.

[i kan reed]

On the other hand, if someone had just reviewed the constitutionality of bill in another context, that's not bias, that's actually being educated.

Re:Let me play Devil's Advocate.

[Vancorps]

While philosophically I feel you should be right, there is ample real life evidence to show that industry often doesn't have ways of dealing with the health risks associated with harsh chemicals. Take IBM for example, fabricating chips is an extremely toxic substance and extremely fragile, dust in the wrong place at the wrong time can destroy a whole production run. So IBM built bunny suits to protect the chips from human hair and dust but neglected protecting the humans from the harsh chemicals and what you got was a class action lawsuit down the road and a lot of health problems.

Theoretically this is why you would have the EPA and OSHA to be your guardians. An average person does not have access to all the information they need to decide on whether their job is safe, federal standards at least try to force companies up to a minimum level.

There are lots of recent examples of the industry failing to protect anything but the bottom line, look at almost every oil spill to date, look at almost every mine collapse, look at the harmful effects of fracking. It gets worse when you start talking about water departments not meeting federal guidelines on chlorine content and getting slapped with thousands of dollars in fines which is only seen as a cost of doing business because the cost of fixing the problem is a few orders of magnitude more expensive.

Re:Let me play Devil's Advocate.

[Sentrion]

The only problem is that if industry has to choose between flame retardant A, which is safe, and flame retardant B, which costs half as much, they will choose option B, even if retardant B is known to leach into ground water and cause birth defects. If retardant B is made readily available, then a manager can safely presume that most of the other facilities in his area will likely also choose option B, and if retardant B is found in ground water and tied years later to birth defects, he can rely on a strategy of plausible deniability, in that any retardant used at his facility would not be enough to cause all of the environmental damage in the area, and that the culprit must be some other facility or maybe the combined effect of all the industries in the area using the same retardant.

The tragedy of the commons is why we have agencies like the EPA, because industry in the past has been left alone to be trusted to do the right thing but in too many cases they chose to do the wrong thing because doing the right thing cut into their profit margins. Agencies like the EPA set a higher standard than what the free market could afford on its own, but, by leveling the playing field, complying with the regulations becomes affordable since competitors can't (legally) undercut on price by skimping on environmental safety. It's a system that can work well if the agencies aren't packed with pro-industry insiders who know that they can land a good future executive position or consulting gig at a major company as long as they play along and let the companies do what they want.

Re:Good

[Desler]

What next? They're going to appoint someone telling us that cigarette smoke causes cancer? What a loon!

All horribly biased!

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re:The EPA has always been headed by industry flac

[steelfood]

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).