House Republicans forbid scientists from advising EPA on their own research

House Republicans just passed a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on their own research
The "reform" measure makes room for industry-funded experts on the EPA's advisory board
Lindsay Abrams
Nov 19, 2014

I am seriously starting to feel ashamed that I was ever registered as a Republican. Before those of you who want to jump my sh** do so, let me reiterate that I am just as disgusted at Democrats who pander to industry & am now proudly Unaffiliated with neither for that very reason. If you are an elected official and your primary concern is NOT the health & wellbeing of The People who elected you and the economy and environmental health of this nation (which are tied together believe it or not), then your ass should not be representing us. If you are so afraid of scientific data from those who do the science, and so beholden to your corporate interests, that you will silence their input for greed, you disgust me and I will do what I can to bring this to light and stop this. Business is good for our continued success as a nation; unregulated, unchecked business doing whatever the hell it wants and the environmental consequences of its actions bedamned has historically ended badly for the public. Have we not learned from our past mistakes? How has it gotten to this point that our government thinks it's okay to silence those who look out for the public's interest? If knowledge is to be stifled, we are no better than someone like N Korea's regime who blocks access to the Internet to keep its citizens uneducated and blindly, stupidly following along. This just pisses me off.

If you want to argue with me that the EPA is evil and out to destroy business with ridiculous demands, save it. I do not, and will not agree. The EPA is there to protect the public's interest and health, and our environment. Every time regulations have been passed corporations have pissed and moaned that it's burdensome, yet our economy is thriving, those businesses who were healthy and run well adapted and survived, those who weren't didn't and that's the nature of business, and we don't have sh** like acid rain still happening. But we do have increasing cancer, autism, metabolic disorders, etc and a whole host of nasty sh** we still breathe, eat, and drink. The EPA can't do its job properly if it's advised by corporate shills with vested interests in less regulation, rather than by publicly funded independent scientists. Remove their input and you are exposing your corporate corruption reps, and you do not deserve to represent Us.

LOL! I'm not qualified, but thanks!

They are independent because the government doesn't tell them what to research, the scientists submit their proposals and it is peer-reviewed based on merit and likelihood of success, and ranked accordingly. Only the top 10% of grants, sometimes less depending upon which NIH Institute is funding, are awarded so it's the cream of the crop based on what other scientists in that same field say - not gov't officials, not accountants, not the EPA, not Joe Schmoe down the block). They receive that grant payment every year for 5 years (or 3 years, depending upon the type of grant) automatically. Those scientists do their research without government interference, and are paid with public taxpayer dollars - they are beholden to the public, not political whim or influence (not to say that there isn't any at all, because look at the amount of breast cancer funding compared to how prevalent it is in the population - dollars are not matched according to the threat they pose the public overall, but there isn't daily or direct meddling once grants are awarded).

If they are productive, meet the goals they state in their proposals, publish, and advance their research significantly over 5 years so that they have new questions to answer and further their research, they get to do it all over again.

If their research bears light on environmental impacts and they present those findings to the EPA, it's from money that was paid by Us, not by the EPA. That makes them independent. They do not receive any personal benefit to the results of their research whether the EPA takes into account their findings or not - they have no financial stake in the game, unlike industry experts who have an agenda - less regulations for their companies so they can make more money, whether it harms the environment or not.