• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Someone Please Explain Banning Scientists From Advising the EPA

ONW

ONW

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
19,177
Reaction score
658
http://inhabitat.com/house-passes-bill-that-prohibits-expert-scientific-advice-to-the-epa/

I'd really, really like to hear a solid argument for this bullshit.

"the GOP-dominated House passed a bill that effectively prevents scientists who are peer-reviewed experts in their field from providing advice — directly or indirectly — to the EPA, while at the same time allowing industry representatives with financial interests in fossil fuels to have their say. Perversely, all this is being done in the name of “transparency.”
 
Last edited:
From your link: Sec. 2(a)(2)(E) " Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work;"

From the OP link: "This means that a scientist who had published a peer-reviewed paper on a particular topic would not be able to advise the EPA on the findings contained within that paper."
 
Standard Conflict of Interest policy....all across science.
 
pourdeac said:
H.R. 1422 doesn't ban anyone, it's actually intended to make things more balanced and transparent. I don't even get how anyone can construe it as "effectively banning" scientists. Maybe you can explain that one.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1422
Click to expand...

Yeah, it really does.

"In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research — the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest."

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/hou..._from_advising_the_epa_on_their_own_research/

"The House of Representatives has passed legislation (H.R. 1422) that prohibits academic scientists on EPA's Scientific Advisory committee from participating in "activities that directly or indirectly involve review of evaluation of their own work," but allows scientists who work for industry to serve on the Board as long as they reveal their respective conflicts of interest."

"Supporters of the legislation argue that the disqualification is necessary to prevent the committee process from being biased, but the House is perfectly willing to have industry paid scientists weigh in,"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sidney-shapiro/how-the-house-would-preve_b_6193730.html

"It actually prohibits scientists who have relevant subject matter expertise from providing their expert advice to the EPA, increasing the likelihood that industry experts—those with obvious financial conflicts of interest—will be able to skew the recommendations of the Board."

http://io9.com/house-passes-a-bill-that-restricts-scientists-from-adv-1661140635
 
Last edited:
pourdeac said:
Standard Conflict of Interest policy....all across science.
Click to expand...

So across science, people who are published experts in a field are not allowed to advise others based on their expertise?
 
"Also called the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, the bill would make it easier for scientists with financial ties to corporations to serve on the SAB, prohibit independent scientists from talking about their own research on the board, and make it more difficult for scientists who have applied for grants from the EPA to join the board."

http://io9.com/house-passes-a-bill-that-restricts-scientists-from-adv-1661140635
 
pourdeac said:
H.R. 1422 doesn't ban anyone, it's actually intended to make things more balanced and transparent. I don't even get how anyone can construe it as "effectively banning" scientists. Maybe you can explain that one.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1422
Click to expand...

"From your link: Sec. 2(a)(2)(E) " Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work;"
 
pourdeac said:
Standard Conflict of Interest policy....all across science.
Click to expand...

"Conflict of Interest (COI): An actual or potential situation that undermines, or may undermine, the impartiality of an individual or non-Federal entity because their self-interest conflicts, or may conflict, with their duty and obligations to EPA and the public in performing an EPA financial assistance agreement. The term also includes situations that create, or may create, an unfair competitive advantage, or the appearance of such, for an applicant in competing for federal financial assistance from EPA."

http://www.epa.gov/ogd/epa_interim_financial_assistance_coi_policy.htm
 
pourdeac said:
Standard Conflict of Interest policy....all across science.
Click to expand...

how so? the scientist has a conflict of interest answering questions on his/her own work when their work relevant to policymaking?

are you for real?
 
Yeah, that's not a conflict of interest. Keep the Pope and the scientists out of this sciency stuff, please.
 
ROFLOL....the bill forbids someone from advising the EPA AND being on the panel making a decision about the work. That's standard conflict of interest. They can still ALL advise the EPA about their work. No one is banned.

As it stands now, what happens is the equivalent of letting a drug maker testify to the FDA about their drug and be on the approval panel for said drug. I guess everyone believing in the 'EPA ban' would be on board with that eh??????
 
ONW said:
"Also called the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, the bill would make it easier for scientists with financial ties to corporations to serve on the SAB, prohibit independent scientists from talking about their own research on the board, and make it more difficult for scientists who have applied for grants from the EPA to join the board."

http://io9.com/house-passes-a-bill-that-restricts-scientists-from-adv-1661140635
Click to expand...
The bill attempts to make it more balanced and transparent since the EPA didn't have to disclose their sources. NO WHERE does that say BAN.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
how so? the scientist has a conflict of interest answering questions on his/her own work when their work relevant to policymaking?

are you for real?
Click to expand...
Once again, that type of activity is still allowed, the conflict arises when they are doing that and making policy citing their work. Can you guys not read what the bill actually says???

It's about time they do something. Maybe we won't get incredibly idiotic policy like CO2 = a toxin. That'll be looked at historically as the "flat earth" moment of this entire saga. We know CO2 is a nutrient. We knew the earth was round. Only an idiot would call it a toxin or the earth flat.
 
pourdeac said:
Once again, that type of activity is still allowed, the conflict arises when they are doing that and making policy citing their work. Can you guys not read what the bill actually says???

It's about time they do something. Maybe we won't get incredibly idiotic policy like CO2 = a toxin. That'll be looked at historically as the "flat earth" moment of this entire saga. We know CO2 is a nutrient. We knew the earth was round. Only an idiot would call it a toxin or the earth flat.
Click to expand...

Toxicity is dose-dependent. At low levels snake venom isn't toxic. At high levels water is toxic.
 
meh, CO2=toxin is no different than tossing capone in jail for tax fraud. sometimes you have to get creative when dealing with stuff like this:

6856466_G.jpg
 
pourdeac said:
ROFLOL....the bill forbids someone from advising the EPA AND being on the panel making a decision about the work. That's standard conflict of interest. They can still ALL advise the EPA about their work. No one is banned.

As it stands now, what happens is the equivalent of letting a drug maker testify to the FDA about their drug and be on the approval panel for said drug. I guess everyone believing in the 'EPA ban' would be on board with that eh??????
Click to expand...

WTF are you even talking about. This bill has nothing to do with "panel making a decision about the work." The Advisory Board gives (wait for it) advice to the EPA who then makes policy decisions based on that advice.

This bill makes a mockery of the term "conflict of interest" by suggesting that scientists are too conflicted to give advice on any issue that indirectly involves their previous peer reviewed work

all while allowing industry representatives with an actual conflict of interest to participate: "persons with substantial and relevant expertise are not excluded from the Board due to affiliation with or representation of entities that may have a potential interest in the Board’s advisory activities,so long as that interest is fully disclosed to the Administrator and the public and appointment to the Board complies with section 208 of title 18, United States Code;"

Making a sewer cover transparent doesn't change what's flowing underneath.
 
ONW said:
Toxicity is dose-dependent. At low levels snake venom isn't toxic. At high levels water is toxic.
Click to expand...
It was actually called a toxic pollutant that needed to be regulated, not necessarily a human toxin. It's flat earth thinking. Even the Greenpeace dude gets it.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top