House Republicans forbid scientists from advising EPA on their own research

ScienceChic wrote: 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.

Really SC, what did you expect? Elections and votes have consequences. Repubicans have clearly shown for sometime that they will not be influenced by science and facts. Look to whom they have elected as chair of the Senate Committee on Environmental Affairs. Sen. James "Global Warming is a Hoax" Inhofe (R. Koch Bros.). He is on record as stating his intentions to dismantle any EPA effort to regulate the emissions of methane by fossil fuel industries, to gut the EPA regulations that affect coal and oil and gas. His testimony on the floor of the Senate just today was incredible.

He based his predetermined conclusion that humans have no effect on climate change based on 1974 charts, references to Al Gore, his panel of "experts" who are composed of tv weathermen, geologists, anthropologists, and non college graduates, yet refuses to consider any peer reviewed studies by actual climatologists. What do you expect from the Republicans that you voted to elect to Congress?

The actual relevant portions of the bill at issue include:


"(E) Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work;"
Thus the very experts who have studied the issue of climate change as well as other aspects of the environment, who have conducted extensive research, prepared scientific research papers that are peer reviewed and are the very experts who have the knowledge needed to understand the issue are barred from using their expertise to advise the EPA.

On the other hand, in this bill:
``(C) 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,"

Lobbyists and employees of fossil fuel industries are allowed to "advise" the EPA on the very science that the scientists are barred from advising the EPA about.

Yet conservatives here have no problem with that.

Why is prohibiting a board member from advising the board on work they have been involved with so objectionable? Don't the words "conflict of interest" apply simply because the board member happens to be a scientist? Other climate experts are not prohibited from advising the board with regards to the work of the board member, only the board member is prohibited from advising the board.

Would you want a member of the board from the drilling industry advising the board based on the results of their own tests on whether or not a particular drilling method was safe? Of course not, you'd pitch a fit about it. And yet, you also rail against the same prohibition being put into place for a climate scientist. What's so objectionable about a uniform and universal policy that is the same for every member of the board irrespective of what their particular expertise happens to be?

There is nothing, repeat nothing, in that description which would prevent a member of the board who was an expert in climate science from advising the board with regards to research done by someone other than the board member. I see nothing wrong with the policy, in fact I would feel much better knowing that no member of the board is going to be able to use their membership on the board to advance their own work regardless of what that work happens to include.

It bars the scientists with the most expertise in the subject matter, those whose research have been the most critically peer reviewed, whose opinions would offer the best possible advice on the subject matter from advising the agency obligated to regulate the industries concerned with that science. At the same time, it allows lobbyists employed by the companies subject to regulation to offer their "scientific advice" on the same subject matter that those who know it the best are barred from doing so. So yes I and most reasonable informed Americans do find it objectionable.

Why is it a conflict of interest for a scientist to offer advise on subjects that they have researched extensively, becoming the most learned about, and have their research critically reviewed to provide their opinions, while it is not a conflict of interest for an fossil fuel lobbyist to offer their "scientific advise" on the same subject? Only in the Republican anti science anti fact world.

I must have missed the part in the description which said that other specialists in the field of climate science were prohibited from advising the board with regards to the work performed by the scientist who was a member of the board. Perhaps some of those "peers" who "reviewed" the work for accuracy and completeness are not fit to do the job? Is that your objection?

Edited to add: The policy makes clear that the scientist is not prohibited from advising the board on the areas they have extensively studied, only from advising the board on matters pertaining to work they themselves performed.

What it actually means is that a scientist who works in a particular field, such as in climatology and the effect that greenhouse gases may have on the climate would be barred from advising the EPA on the research that he has extensive knowledge about, while at the same time, a lobbyist for the Koch Bros. or ExxonMobile can "advise" the EPA on their opinions about it while having absolutely no research into the issue.

This bill would effectively bar any credible scientific research being used to advise the EPA on critical issues.

Something the Dog Said wrote: "(E) Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work;"

Are you having trouble with reading comprehension Dog? It says, quite clearly I might add, that board members may not participate in advisory activities that involve review of their own work, not their own field of specialty, their own work - work which they themselves performed, that they directly or indirectly are responsible for themselves. Not the work of others in their field, the direct and indirect products of their own work.

Tell me something Dog, do you think you are the best critic to examine the products of your own work? I have yet to find a single person who is, but perhaps you could be the first one I've ever encountered.

My reading comprehension is quite adequate. The Board is limited to a set number of "experts", each with their particular field of expertise or lobbying experience. If these naked attempt to deny science was to succeed, an emminently qualified scientist with decades of renowned expertise in the field of climatology and with particular emphasis in the effect of greenhouse gases will be prohibited from advising on any issue relating to their extensive personal research. If they are banned from advising based on their own research, then what are to advise about? Then on the flipside, industry geologist will be advising on issues of greenhouse gases and climatology with which they have not the full realm of expertise since that is not their field of research.

This bill is simply an attempt to deny the EPA the ability to have access to the best science possible, since the Republicans know that science fully supports that greenhouse admissions are affecting the climate in an adverse way. Otherwise why make this change?

As to critic of my own work, this is about providing (or rather denying) the best science to the EPA. Denying the opportunity to present the best possible knowledge to the EPA by those who know it the best is not in the best interest of this nation. The science should be peer reviewed before it is present to the EPA, the EPA is not the place for such peer review to occur. The Board should be balanced so that if something is not supported by the facts, then that can be balanced by the other experts. But to just deny the opportunity for an expert to advise based on their decades of learned research on the subject matter that they know the best would be ludicrous if was not so shameful.

Since you love your analogies, then think of this way, would you prefer to be advised by a medical specialist with extensive experience on your particular condition, using their experience to diagnosis and treat your unique condition, or prefer to have your condition interpreted by someone with no experience in the particular field?

Your illogical reasoning is exposed here. The board member who is a climate scientist is only forbidden on advising the board on his own research, not the research of others within the same field. That presumed climate expert may still advise the board with regards to the findings of others within the realm of climate science. A drilling expert may not advise the board on the safety of drilling practices for which they are responsible for developing, but they are still free to advise the board on the safety of drilling practices developed by others.

See how that works? One consistent set of rules applied across the board, pun intended.

PrintSmith wrote: Your illogical reasoning is exposed here. The board member who is a climate scientist is only forbidden on advising the board on his own research, not the research of others within the same field. That presumed climate expert may still advise the board with regards to the findings of others within the realm of climate science. A drilling expert may not advise the board on the safety of drilling practices for which they are responsible for developing, but they are still free to advise the board on the safety of drilling practices developed by others.

See how that works? One consistent set of rules applied across the board, pun intended.

No, my reasoning is spot on. The most preeminent expert on the topic will be barred from advising based on their extensive expert research, but is expected to advise based on research they did not conduct or have personal experience in that research. So at best, their advice would be based on second hand opinions, not on their own opinions formed from their excellent research into the topic. So the Republicans do not want the best science to be used, but second hand science instead.

You may be happy with second rate science, but I expect and desire the best possible information to be used in assisting the EPA in their development of regulations.

I have yet to meet the person who can be said to be the best critic of their own work Dog. That is why one doesn't proofread, or edit, their own work; common mistakes are easily overlooked when one is also responsible for the content.

No, forbidding a member of the board from advising the board on their own work is a responsible policy to follow regardless of what subject the board member is most familiar. We wouldn't let a judge sit on the bench of a trial where he was also an eyewitness, we wouldn't let the judge preside over a trial where he had to make rulings on arguments made by former law partners, or where the judge was originally attached to the firm bringing a civil suit. Conflict of interest applies every bit as much to scientists as it does to every other profession.