Slashdot Mirror
Senate Advances "Secret Science" Bill, Sets Up Possible Showdown With President
sciencehabit writes: Republicans in Congress appear to be headed for a showdown with the White House over controversial "secret science" legislation aimed at changing how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses scientific studies. A deeply divided Senate panel yesterday advanced a bill that would require EPA to craft its policies based only on public data available to outside experts. The House of Representatives has already passed a similar measure. But Democrats and science groups have harshly criticized the approach, and the White House has threatened a veto.
Secret toad controls Congreff. Secret toad has poison webs in its eyes. Secret toad is behind all NATO exercises and World Bank. Secret toad controls air with secret toad poison rays and mind controff.
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
Making decisions based on research that can't be independently validated or audited is the very definition of junk science. I mean, I know that the pay journals would love to see open access go away, but that's just their flawed business model talking.
The EPA under the current administration has been going a little crazy with expanding its oversight into areas it's not really entitled to oversee. For example, it is not at all clear that the EPA should be regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. There isn't a compelling scientific case for it, nor is there legislation that covers it. The EPA has been overdue for a smackdown to draw it back to a more focused and appropriate mission.
If they're going to create such a rule for EPA, then it should also apply to NIH, FDA, DOE, and so on. If they don't make it universal, then they're showing an obvious bias and clearly pushing an agenda which is attempting to influence specific science.
I'm sure they're trying to pull a fast one of some kind but I admit to not seeing the problem with this idea in general. Shouldn't we want them to be basing policy on publicly available data?
You have to start somewhere.
Even if there is such a bias, what of it? It is not like imposing this rule on the EPA today would prevent imposing it on other departments/agencies later.
Besides, the opponents of the idea do not oppose it on the grounds, that it is not going far enough. Obama is not saying:"I will veto this bill unless the rule covers the entire federal government! No way, no how!!"
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If you're wondering why using "secret" science to regulate various environmental issues is a bad idea:
Researcher A: I've just discovered a substrate that makes solar cells 50% more efficient. This pushes their cost effectiveness to the point of making widespread adoption a no-brainer.
Researcher B, funded by the coal lobby: Hey EPA - this new solar substrate causes birth defects in robins! You can't show the proof to anyone though as it involves a secret process...
EPA: OK, effective immediately this substrate is banned.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Basing policy decisions on data that can be peer reviewed -- why would this even be an issue? Isn't this better than "you can't do that, and we won't tell you why" or the nebulous "studies say". What studies? Secret studies. Ok...
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If Congress is for it, it probably isn't science.
"Secret Science" must be their code words for real science.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
So, basically a bunch of luddites on the payroll of major corporations are trying to ensure those corporations have access to whatever private data they need to discredit the science?
Way to go, America. You're being controlled by idiots and corporate shills.
Now you can continue your descent into a bunch of drooling creationists who have handed the keys over to corporate control.
Honestly, it seems like America is fast becoming the land of the Dumb and Ignorant.
I swear, half of America is too fucking stupid to be allowed to live.
"and the White House has threatened a veto"
Yes! Our transparency president to the rescue....
love is just extroverted narcissism
They should pass a law that works the other way: If any federal agency has scientific data that could affect the future health and safety of the population enough to justify legislation, then they should be required to publish it openly.
I RTFA and don't get the controversy. Of course the data used to form regulations should be easily available to everybody. The only reason to use secret data is you want to hide something.
Not trying to troll here, just not seeing the other side.
I know we have to try to make responsible laws for things like the environment, but when has the U.S. government EVER gotten science really right? "Hello, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." Right. We are up to our eyeballs in regulations, many based on bad science due to ignorance and politics, and many others based merely on greed and backroom dealings. So I'm all for transparency. President Obama utterly failed to actually provide any of the transparency he promised when he was campaigning, yet I am not sure this legislation is the way to do it either. Typically, the bill has all the trademarks of politicians who don't know anything about science or the scientific process trying to pass science legislation. There is more political relevance than scientific relevance to this, and some of it just wrong-headed. As stated in the article, "[S.544] would require EPA to base all its rules, assessments, and guidance on data that is ... reproducible" and then later states "many studies, such as longitudinal surveys, are not realistically reproducible" which means they would not be allowed to be used under these rules. I am suspicious of the agendas of all of the various elected officials who are discussing this bill. (FWIW, I am neither a Republicrat nor a Demopublican.)
Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.
science, by definition, cannot be secret.
Every single study which involves health records would be forbidden to be used, because the RAW data is not available to the public. It's the perfect knot - previous law prevents the release of personally identifiable medical data, and this law makes it illegal to base any regulation on any study for which the raw data (in this case, personally identifiable - as it must be able to be 100% independently verified) is not released to the public.
This is about neutering the EPA's ability to "prove" that any particular pollutant causes harm to humans. If you can't provide the raw data that asbestos has led to lung cancer - patient records going back decades - you aren't allow to regulate it. Black lung? Chromium compounds in drinking water? Sorry, unless you publically release the medical records of every single person in every study you cite, it's "secret data" and junk science.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
"Outside experts" of course being another name for "lobbyists".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Yes, but it's a *good* attempt to influence science. Open, repeatable processes are strictly a good thing.
I realize they're trying to attack climate change, but I think it would be better to accept this challenge head on. There really ISN'T anything to hide and accepting the challenge would be the better way to prove that.
..is as usual relying on the ignorance of the public. For example one of the long time complaints about the "hockey stick" from the deniers in the US senate was that a small portion of the raw data could not be published due to (default) copyright terms imposed by the french and a couple of other geographically small nations. The data was available but you had to go to the French government and wait six months to get it. There are lots of other cases where data is collected from industry and individuals where those supplying the data do not want the raw data published for legal, commercial, or personal reasons. The basic rule of research is you take what data you can get and publish what you are allowed to by those who supply it.
A more useful law would be to force anti-science "charities" such as the heartland institute to reveal their accounts to the public, if the IPCC and EPA can do it why can't a tax exempt no-think tank do the same?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Shouldn't we want them to be basing policy on publicly available data?
This is an excellent example of how well-crafted political propaganda works. The act of introducing the bill implies the EPA are not already basing policy on publicly available data, opposing the bill implies you want to hide something from the public. Even if the bill fails to pass, it has already succeeded as a propaganda piece.
Make no mistake, this is a far-right attempt to put Science on a short leash.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
A few facts from a true environmentalist and an engineer who lives off a solar array:
1. EPA regulations cost the US economy tens of billions of dollars each year. Some regulations are well founded in science and worth the cost. Most of these regulations were put in place 20+ years ago.
2. CO2 is a key molecule of life. If all of the CO2 were scrubbed out of the atmosphere all plant life on the planet would end and the rest of us would soon follow. Regulating CO2 will increase the cost of ENERGY which plays a part in every facet of human life.
3. The EPA has gone from a facts based, common sense clean air clean water agency that everyone can support to a tin foil hat wearing envirowhacko organization that wants to regulate almost every facet of life and un-necessarily increases the cost of living for most Americans. The fact that the global temperature has been flat for the last ten years, proving their climate models are wildly inaccurate, is just one symptom of a larger problem.
4. Any scientist who runs from the sunlight of publication is very likely a snake oil salesman.
5. The fallacious argument that medical studies would not be basis for policy is a straw man. While the personally identifiable info (name, phone number etc.) would be protected, the raw data of the study (age, health conditions etc). would be available, and that is what the bill is proposing. Governmental professional review would still have access to the protected information during their review process,and this does not violate the privacy laws, as there is a difference from publishing names and phone numbers and internal review followed by publishing the raw DATA which is not names and phone numbers. That aside, the goal of this law is environmental studies and models, and everyone knows it.
A bunch of left wing nut jobs and their envirowhacko lap dogs on /.are trying to find any argument they can to avoid showing the public how they have been lying and scamming them out of billions of dollars of research grants, screaming the sky is falling and trying to control every aspect of everyone's lives for the "greater good" to "save the planet." The FACTS support that the world is doing just fine, it gets warmer and colder (i.e. previous ice ages predating human existence, and more prior to industrialization), and if we can get China to enact some basic environmental protocols and get rid of a bunch of crazy ones in the US, it will get 10x better in absolute, objective terms for the entire planet. There is real pollution, but it is happening in China and India, and regulating CO2 in the US will devastate our economy for absolutely no reason and have no other effect.
Of course it allows it - but does it *fund* it? That's the chloroform in the rag. Unless the original study authors spent the money up front to carefully anonymize the data, it all has to be re-hashed from scratch to ensure that no identifying data is released to the public, but that all the records are intact. That costs money, and I'm going to bet a donut that there's not a single cent allocated to pay for that data. And every single study would be required to be anonymized whether or not anyone else is going to look at it. It's a ruse to make access to the research which is out there simply unaffordable to use. And if you can't pay for it, you can't cite it.
Game. Match. Set.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
So as a counter start a bill that would make the creation of CO2 from hyrdrocarbons subject to pollution control limits under the EPA. Based on the clear and open public evidence of global warming due to CO2 emissions. Definite evidence that CO2 is harmfull to our environment and will definitly lead to catastrophic results. They can even cite Lloyds of London and other underwriters as recognizing the possible damages.
Personally I think the bill is a good idea. All government research should be public and all government decisions should be based on sound public science as agreed upon by pure research scientists, not politicians, not super-pacs, not privately sponsored scientists.
As a lifetime Michigan resident, I recall rivers on fire and the toxic lakes. Our waters were the butt of the jokes in the 1970s:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5378456/bill_murray_snl_classic_commercial/
Now we have just shipped much of the problem overseas.
Science: systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
For observations you need data. You will also need something to test your experiments against... Data. You can either collect it yourself or purchase it if it is already available. Are the republicans offering to purchase the data or are they rent seekers?
The way the bill is crafted , you openly make all your data public including private data. This means *private* health care data often made public. It is a way by republican to simply bury environmental study they don't like because they show up impact on the population. Do you really want to stop all environmental study with anonymized medical data ?
It's hilarious to watch the radical leftists in here who attack anyone who questions Climate Change (TM) with the argument "It's proven by scientific evidence!" but then vehemently oppose allowing third parties to validate the "scientific" evidence that the EPA uses to make policy. The argument that the bill will require release of medical information is a complete fallacy... Your smoke and mirrors don't cloud the issue here, sorry. If a government agency is using "scientific" data to make policy, it should be made public. There are ways to make data anonymous and don't give me the tinfoil-hat BS about "it can never be anonymous, they'll track you down!". Noone cares enough about your herpes meds to de-anonymize an enormous list of medical subjects used in an EPA study.
The takeaway here is that the leftists on Slashdot (and in the White House/EPA) know the data the EPA uses for policy is complete BS and are absolutely terrified they'll be exposed for what they are: bullies who pretend to use science to avoid scrutiny.
For example, the study using mice that showed that 10ppb As in drinking water harmed "mothers and their offspring" (mouse mothers and baby mice, not humans) didn't have to list the names of the mice, only aggregate numbers.
Do lab mice even get names? Or is it just the mice on the "outside", like the fictional Elizabeth Brisby?
Whatever side you are on...Thanks for keeping me laughing. This is a hoot.