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!

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

[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.

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.

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.

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).