EPA Dismisses Half the Scientists on Its Major Review Board (nymag.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: A few weeks after the election, pro-Trump commentator Scottie Nell Hughes heralded the dawn of a new era when she declared, "There's no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts." In the age of Trump there's little need for people who've devoted their lives to studying scientific facts, and over the weekend the administration finally got around to dismissing some of them. According to the Washington Post, about half of the 18 members on the Environmental Protection Agency's Board of Scientific Counselors have been informed that their terms will not be renewed. The academics who sit on the board advise the EPA's scientific board on whether its research is sound. The academics usually serve two three-year stints, and they were told by Obama administration officials and career EPA staffers that they would stay on for another term. But on Friday some received emails from the agency informing them that their first three-year term was up and they would not be renominated. Republican members of Congress have complained for some time that the Board of Scientific Counselors, as well as the 47-member Science Advisory Board, just rubber-stamp new EPA regulations. A spokesman for EPA administrator Scott Pruitt confirmed that he's thinking of replacing the academics with industry experts (though the EPA is supposed to be regulating those companies). Gretchen Goldman, research director at the Center for Science and Democracy, expressed her disappointment and asked, "What's the scientific reason for removing these individuals from this EPA science review board? It is rare to see such a large scale dismissal even in a presidential transition. The EPA is treating this scientific advisory board like its members are political appointees when these committees are not political positions. The individuals on these boards are appointed based on scientific expertise not politics. This move by the EPA is inserting politics into science."

Comments

Money

[DontBeAMoran]

Who's watching the watchers if they're watching themselves?

Re:Money

[MightyMartian]

Because some alt-right AC troll is such an example of financial success.

Just because you're a basement dwelling piece of shit doesn't mean the rest of the world is. I hope your parents throw you out on your ass so you have to actually get a real job.

Brain surgery

[PopeRatzo]

Those damn scientists think they're so smart, with their highfalutin PhDs and science stuff. We need more straight-shooting regular people doing science.

A spokesman for EPA administrator Scott Pruitt confirmed that he's thinking of replacing the academics with industry experts

OK, this shit ain't funny no more.

Re:Brain surgery

[__aaclcg7560]

These people need to go find an honest way to earn their bread.

They become industry consultants and get their old jobs back. And then some people wonder why nothing changes in Washington.

Re:Brain surgery

[Anonymous Coward]

"These people that are controlling things right now are in their own little world with no regard or though for the consequences of their actions on real peoples lives"

Do you honestly believe that the world would be a better place if anyone could do anything they want to the shared environment? Think about what that world would look like. If your neighbor could burn whatever they want, dump whatever they want. What if your neighbor was a chemical plant.

Look at the history of companies like DuPont, Dow Chemical, etc... Look at what happens when there is no EPA. Think about living next to one of these without somebody keeping them in check.

Without a check on behavior, people will live like they "are in their own little world with no regard or though for the consequences of their actions on real peoples lives". And they will destroy that world given 1/2 a chance. I'd like them not to destroy the world I share with them.

Re:Brain surgery

[sycodon]

Interestingly enough, when a medical committee is looking at brain surgeons, they typically have a few on the committee.

Government is about balancing interests of multiple groups against each other and deciding the best public policy.For instance, eliminating ALL cars from the road would save tens of thousands of lives and reduce the CO2 emissions of the US by orders of magnitude. But we don't do that because a destroyed economy isn't worth it (at least to rational people).

The EPA must always balance the cost of regulations with the expected benefit. If you have a committee of people who do not know the industry, don't know the real costs of a policy, then you end up with bad policy. The very LEAST that should have been done is to augment the committee with industry experts.

As it is they are keeping half the scientists and will be bringing in Industry people.

Re:Brain surgery

[thaylin]

You have fellow PHDs on the board, you dont invite the patients to review potential brain surgens, but that is what you are talking about.

The EPAs job is not to balance the cost of regulations with the benefits, that is congress' job, the EPA has one job, and it is in its name.

Re:Brain surgery

[Calydor]

So do you want the brain surgeons to determine policy for which fuckups during brain surgery your next of kin can sue them for?

Re:Brain surgery

[DogDude]

While I like my environment clean, I really don't like the excesses EPA went into with passenger cars.

Well, now, you can pay for your own lung cancer from car exhaust with your own money! Enjoy your freedom!

We are well into diminishing returns territory on both emissions and mileage - modern cars are good enough

Good enough for what, exactly? Good enough to cause massive pollution? Good enough to collectively warm up our environment? Good enough to cause illness?

Look it's fine if people want to kill themselves. Have a grand ol' time. But when your desire to kill yourself interferes with my desire to live a relatively long, healthy life, then we've got a problem. So, please, go suck on an exhaust pipe. Those of us interested in clean air would appreciate it.

Re:Brain surgery

[rahvin112]

Industry was already on the committee, by law they have to be, just like by law other groups are supposed to be represented as well. He's firing everyone that's NOT industry so industry is the only one on the committee and the only one with a voice. This is why everyone called Pruitt a Shill for industry, make no mistake he's getting paid for this, either now or later.

Because clean air and water should be something only the rich can afford.

Re:Brain surgery

[AthanasiusKircher]

I don't think one should fear the participation of non-PhDs in EPA decision making.

Please re-read the post you replied to. I explicitly said that perhaps there should be a role in discussing and generating environmental policy that could incorporate industry experts. But TFA is talking about SCIENCE advisory boards, i.e., groups of people who are experts in SCIENCE. If they want to have an "industry advisory board" at the EPA too, I'm not necessarily opposed to that, or some sort of joint group. But it seems really odd to claim that we should put people who aren't science experts on a SCIENCE board.

Re:Brain surgery

[silentcoder]

"In our research we have found no evidence that lead levels in the atmosphere is higher than the natural level nor that atmospheric lead is harmful to human health"
"You wouldn't, since you're in the business of selling lead".

That actual conversation happened in front of congress in congressional hearings about whether lead in gasoline should be banned. The second speaker was Claire Cameron Paterson. Paterson had, several years earlier - set out to determine the age of the earth by doing uranium dating on an asteroid dating from the earliest days of the solar system. Uranium dating works by figuring out what percentage of uranium had turned to lead.
But he ran into a problem - the lead levels were impossibly high, as in the earth was apparently created last Tuesday high. He realized that lead pollution was interfering with the results. To actually get the answer he had to produce a lead-free environment to do the testing in - and to do that he had, had to become the world's top expert on detecting trace amounts of lead.
He did just that- and along the way realized that lead levels in the atmosphere was astronomically high (a big problem for something known to be a deadly poison that made people crazy and violent). The lead industry argued that lead in the atmosphere wasn't harmful and was, in fact, normal. Paterson proved (using ice core samples) that, prior to leaded gasoline being introduced, the lead level in the atmosphere was ZERO. He also collaborated with numerous doctors and proved there is no safe dosage of lead - a single lead atom is harmful to humans.

That hearing happened in 1955 with Paterson presenting his evidence to congress and begging them to ban leaded gasoline for the sake of the health of all Americans. The industry experts, despite their clear incentive for manipulating and lying about their data, won.
In fact they won for another 30 years. Leaded gasoline wasn't banned in the USA until 1985. Many other countries didn't follow suit until a decade later.

Thirty years during which millions of people needlessly died - to make a few companies a little richer.
The person who is going to be regulated by something CANNOT have a say in the regulations because is NEVER in his best interest NOT to flat out lie. If you ask him "if X harmful" he will lie if he makes money out of X.
If you ask him "how much will banning X cost" - he will lie and pretend it's a trillion times the real number, pretend he'll have to fire more people than he actually employs and tell you that fart goblins will crawl up the toilet and bite your asshole if you ban X.
He'll say ANYTHING to ensure X keeps making him money - and he won't care who dies so he can do it.

Facts get in the way.

[ITRambo]

Trump and his cronies, advisers, and buddies, can't let facts get in the way of their beliefs.

Re:Facts get in the way.

[sdinfoserv]

Almost - they can't let facts (or laws) get in the way of extracting profit from people and the environment.
Remember, he promised jobs; just like the way China grew it's economy at 10% annually for over a decade.
We should not be surprised when we end up with the same toxic waste land that has Beijing : China has 7 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Of course if your a capitalist, you can just claim this is fake news and continue your pillage.

All the scientists

[Dan East]

Since more scientists are better, why doesn't the government just employ ALL the scientists? This 18 member panel didn't actually do scientific work, but they reviewed the scientific work of the actual working scientists, so that makes them more like bureaucratic scientists? The scientific work produced by the EPA should be peer reviewed in any case, and not reviewed by a static group of scientists that almost certainly have a net bias towards the viewpoints of whatever administration made the decision to hire each of them.

The academics usually serve two three-year stints, and they were told by Obama administration officials and career EPA staffers that they would stay on for another term.

Well that's just ridiculous. I hope no one believed that had any merit in reality.

Re:try worrying about pollution

[Anonymous Coward]

If there was a market for low-priced lead-free water someone would supply it.

The fact that none of them has taken it upon themselves to make a nice living doing so just shows that not only do they deserve to be poor but they deserve to be poisoned too.
--
roman_mir

Foxes in the Henhouse

[Comboman]

A spokesman for the henhouse comfirmed that he's thinking of replacing the roosters with "chicken experts" (i.e. foxes).

Re: Shouldn't people be fired for incompetence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your first link is a google list of fake news sites.

That gold mine spill was because the gold miner was illegally storing waste water. The EPA didn't cause a thing. The fault is 100% the gold miners.

See, what mining companies do is they mine, store their toxic waste on site, extract the profits to their investors, go into debt, pay their investors even more money, then go bankrupt and leave the taxpayers wth the cleanup bill.
Privatize profits, socialize the costs.
Then conservatives use this shit as "proof" how bad the EPA is.
It's like lie that Mitch McConnell (R-KY) invented that the EPA has a war on coal when in fact the decline in coal is 100% caused by the free markets that conservatives worship.

See, the EPA is the fall guy that businesses use to hide their exploitation of us and our environment.

And stupid people beleive the lie because they think the business community has nothing but their interests at heart.

Is it irony or cluelessness? How can you tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Elections have consequences. In this case, America spoke with a single unified voice

Is that intended to be ironic? If so, you need to understand that irony is invisible on the internet, since it is camouflaged by the ubiquitous cluelessness pervasive on comment posts.

If this is not intended to be ironic: that's ironic. Because, in fact, America did not speak with a single unified voice.

and declared that we are sick of all the burdensome environmental regulations destroying our lives and careers and they need some one to rain them in.

If this is intended as ironic: ROFL on the phrase "rain them in."

If it's not intended as ironic: that's ironic.

Wrong Way Around

[jasnw]

Actually, this isn't inserting politics into science as stated, it's more like a continuation of the removal of science and all its annoying reliance on real facts from politics/governance.

Truer words were never spoken

[smooth wombat]

"There's no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts."

When "alternative facts" are said to be true because they're declared to be true, when vaccines are once again said to cause autism, when the settled science of climate change is used as the reason to build a sea wall around a golf course while at the same time declared to be fiction concocted by a foreign government, it is quite clear the manipulation of the uneducated is the end goal.

This whole debacle of declaring untrue what is patently true is a page taken right out of Putin's playbook. Lie, lie, deny and make the other person appear to be the one who has to prove anything despite the overwhelming evidence already presented.

Re:Science and politics?

[GameboyRMH]

Horseshit. If one political party accepts science and the other rejects it, using that science to make decisions not equate to supporting the party that accepts it. If Democrats believed that foodborne illnesses were caused by demons, the FDA would not be furthering a political ideology.

Where we would like to think that *somehow* facts will win the argument, there are way to many alternate realities floating around with their on version of facts and truth these days.

Fuck that. An abundance of lies does not mean we can't have an objective reality.

Re:Science and politics?

[swillden]

Horseshit. If one political party accepts science and the other rejects it, using that science to make decisions not equate to supporting the party that accepts it. If Democrats believed that foodborne illnesses were caused by demons, the FDA would not be furthering a political ideology.

All true. However, I have to bring up some of the points mentioned by the AC that got modded down to -1, because he wasn't entirely wrong. Democrats -- thanks mostly to the element of the party from the education-loving Northeast -- tend to take a more favorable view of educated opinions, and therefore science, but they're far from perfect. In particular, anywhere that science conflicts with other elements of their ideology, science loses, e.g. all of the science that shows that GMOs are safe. Both parties take an anti-scientific perspective on nuclear power (though the Dems are worse on this issue than the Reps). The Democrats most often diverge from science when it interferes with the anti-establishment element of the party from the left coast. The Republicans most often diverge from science when it interferes with the religious right element from the deep south. But there are other cases for both.

There is no "party of science". There are two parties that each have their own bundle of ideological views, derived from the allied subcultures that compose them, and both love science when it supports their ideology and ignore/hate it when it contradicts. On the whole, Democrats are more pro-science than Republicans, but not in every area.

Where we would like to think that *somehow* facts will win the argument, there are way to many alternate realities floating around with their on version of facts and truth these days.

Fuck that. An abundance of lies does not mean we can't have an objective reality.

Indeed we can... and it starts by objectively comparing your own and your party's beliefs with the best ground truth knowledge available, which is provided by science, and admitting where they do and don't coincide.

Personally, I find it's easiest to do that if you avoid being emotionally tied to either party.

Re: Nine

[PoopJuggler]

A bureaucracy is not necessarily a bad thing. Look at OSHA and how much better working conditions are for millions of Americans because of them.

Aztec brain surgery: cutting w/o knowledge

[fyngyrz]

A Scientist might say that you could get cancer from, you know, carcinogens, so they should be removed from cigarettes, or cigarettes should be not sold to children who are not assumed able to make informed decisions. Or pregnant women. Or stupid people.

An industry expect would say, sure, but we have this cute camel, see, and the kids love it, and besides, no one wants to hear that shit about cancer, so we'll just keep on keeping on, eh? Which is exactly what they did.

THAT is what happens when there is no scientific oversight with punch.

Science brought you everything good you have. Science is the dirt technology grows in. Unscientific hand-waving is the dirt that lung cancer from cigarettes and tailpipes and dirty coal power plants grows in.