Stacking the Deck Against Science (Liberal's Moan about Bush Science "Litmis Test")

Wired News ^ | 02:00 AM Feb. 03, 2004 PT | Kristen Philipkoski

[vannrox]

Under the guise of promoting sound science, the Bush administration is advancing a policy that could make it more difficult for federal agencies to protect health and the environment, U.S. scientists say.

A White House Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, bulletin (PDF) drafted in August 2003 would allow the government to hand-pick scientists to second-guess scientific research, opponents say. The text of the bulletin says its purpose would be to ensure that all research affecting federal regulations, such as environmental or health advisories, would be thoroughly peer reviewed by unbiased researchers.

[vannrox]

"...Under the guise of promoting sound science, the Bush administration is advancing a policy that could make it more difficult for federal agencies to protect health and the environment, U.S. scientists say. ..."

JUST Who Are these unnamed Scientists?

My guess is that they are Liberal Professors relying on Federal Grants. And now, the teat is dry.

[Junior]

"Oh My" ping...

[sauropod]

"Peer review is the backbone of all serious science..."

And quite corrupt which is why all this is necessary. Think IPCC report on Global Warming.

[Still Thinking]

"It is really amazing that OMB has not pointed out a single instance of bad rule-making or decision-making based on (scientific) information," DePalma said.

Hello? Second hand smoke? Kyoto Accord?? (Admittedly not a US govt fiasco, but illustrative nonetheless.)

[Still Thinking]

It's such a bad policy it causes people to spell words wrong. ;-) (Liberal's=Liberals; litmis=litmus)

[WOSG]

"It is really amazing that OMB has not pointed out a single instance of bad rule-making or decision-making based on (scientific) information," DePalma said.

It's real amazing that DePalma was never told that the EPA spawned a huge amount of regulation and laws based on the junk-science of 'second-hand smoke'. That's just one of countless examples - add Alar, the silicone breast implant junk science, etc.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[JoeFromSidney]

"It is really amazing that OMB has not pointed out a single instance of bad rule-making or decision-making based on (scientific) information," DePalma said.

The book POLITICIZING SCIENCE, ed. Michael Gough, was published in 2003 by the Hoover Institution Press (available from Amazon). It is full of examples of science being warped to support government policies.

In my chapter in the book, I discuss the bad to nonexistent science behind the spotted owl logging ban, the lynx hair fraud, the wolves introduced in Yellowstone, and the Klamath Basin water supply.

Scientists who receive funding from an agency should never be used to review the agency's work. If they were so stupid as to give a negative review, they'd never get another grant from the agency. Outsiders are essential because they don't have the threat of losing their support hanging over them.

When the government funds over two-thirds of all basic research in the US, it's going to be hard to find scientists who aren't depending on public funding.

[balrog666]

Bush is introducing peer review for FDA and EPA BS? Good!

[balrog666]

"It is really amazing that OMB has not pointed out a single instance of bad rule-making or decision-making based on (scientific) information," DePalma said.

It is amazing. Here's an easy one: Clinton's executive order about arsenic levels in drinking water.

[RightWingAtheist]

I wonder how many of the people opposing the OMB plan also want to revive the OTA-which essentially also tried to provide an unbiased review of scientific and technical sources crucial to polich decisions, but which was accused by Republicans as being too biased and politicized.

[RightWingAtheist]

Something all the articles trashing Bush for being "anti-science" always fail to point out is that science and technology policy in a new administration or cabinet is always compromised by who came before them. The Clinton administration had already begun to cut funding in basic science long before Bush came on the scene (and many Democrats, notably the late George Brown, were already warning of a crisis in science policy during the Clinton years), and Dubya is, unfortunately, has not yet done anything to steer things right. Has ANYONE in Washington bothered to read the Ehlers Report?

[sergeantdave]

Once in every thousand laws or so Congress creates an earthquake that can shift the balance between the federal government and American citizens.

Such is the “Data Quality Act” (DQA), signed into law in the waning days of the Clinton administration.

DQA gives citizens a bulldozer that can rip up huge chunks of bureaucratic debris and bury it. It is written to provide relief to the $900 billion Americans spend annually obeying bureaucratic dictates.

The DQA outlines a legal process where businesses and citizens can petition federal agencies to correct or remove information which does not meet specific standards. This is the underlying data bureaucrats use to write rules and make themselves everyday pests.

The language in the DQA allows citizens to search out and destroy bureaucratic gobbledygook, junk science and politically motivated statements before they are written into rules that spoil the American landscape.

Each federal agency has issued quidelines to challenge information.

DQA also has implications for state bureaucrats, say legal scholars. Many states develop programs based on the federal government’s draft rules and guidelines. If a federal draft is successfully challenged, state agencies will need to drop or rewrite rules.

Additionally, DQA eliminates lawyers and courts as the first step in correcting bureaucratic abuse.

In short, here is the DQA:

In Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 (PL 106-544, H.R. 5658), DQA directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue government-wide guidelines that “provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies.”

The OMB directed that all federal agencies issue guidelines for “administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the OMB guidelines.”

So what does this mean in the big, wide picture of government control vs individual sovereignty?

Food fight!!!!

DQA will pit businesses and individuals against federal bureaucrats who want to control every inch of American life. The rule is set up to challenge information before this data is written into a rule.

Proponents of DQA say it hands people a magnifying glass, eraser, scissors, hammer and chain saw to snip away or obliterate useless nanny government dictates.

Big Brother bureaucrats, on the other hand, and their yipping poodles in Non-Government Organizations like the Sierra Club, oppose the DQA, insisting that challenges will have no affect on their odious rule-making ability. This, of course, is nonsense, unless the bravado is an indication that bureaucrats intend to defy Congress.

The first DQA challenges to bureaucratic infestation are just starting to roll in, and most have been filed by businesses that have the staff and money to object to the science or objectivity in government information.

Under the Section 515 guidelines, “affected persons” can legally challenge any information disseminated by a federal agency at any stage of development, including draft form.

Challenges must clearly demonstrate that specific information does not meet OMB quality standards. OMB, many business, industry groups and legal experts interpret Section 515 to apply to rulemaking, although a few legal analysts disagree.

Agencies must respond to requests to correct information according to timeframes established by their own guidelines and must provide a process for re-appeal. Most legal analysts say that judicial review of final decisions is available, although some disagree.

[humboldtconservative]

Just think....if we had this sort of thing 15-20 years ago, the whole "global warming" load of bull could have been stopped before it was started...

[<1/1,000,000th%]

"It wouldn't be peer review as we're used to," said William Schlesinger, president of the Ecological Society of America, which represents 8,000 scientists in academia, government and industry.

There are more scientists at our corporate headquarters than in this organization

[greenwolf]

Leftists have been trying to use the environment as a pretext for avoiding and going around democratic practices for the last 35 years. Screw the environment; let it work for a living and take care of itself like I do.

[Tench_Coxe]

" "It wouldn't be peer review as we're used to," said William Schlesinger, president of the Ecological Society of America, which represents 8,000 scientists in academia, government and industry. "

Two warning signs right there:

1. Appeal to authority
2. Fiat via consensus

Run, don't walk, in the other direction.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Aracelis]

The OMB bulletin would require that peer reviewers be "independent of the agency" involved when it comes to "significant regulatory information." Experts receiving funding from the agency involved, who have performed multiple peer reviews for that agency in recent years or just one review on the same topic, would be eliminated as potential reviewers. That would eliminate the top experts in a given field, scientists said in letters responding to the bulletin.

Five congressmen and members of the Committee on Science wrote a response to the bulletin saying items as disparate as Alan Greenspan's decisions on interest rates, Veterans Affairs drug prices and weather warnings could fall under this rule and require peer review.

Opponents also say the measure is trying to fix something that's not broken.

"It is really amazing that OMB has not pointed out a single instance of bad rule-making or decision-making based on (scientific) information," DePalma said.

Since the preponderance of posters to this thread seem to think that more big government is a good idea...go for it. It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to distinguish between the Liberal form of Big Brother and the Conservative version.

The scientific peer review process has worked very well for quite a long time. Yes, certain special interest groups have been "under-served" and "under-represented" (I am deliberately using liberal buzz words to describe some "Conservative" elements), however their "science" is uncertain, emotional in nature and employs a certain mystical flavor that have no place in peer review. Unbiased observations, data collection, and carefully considered conclusions do not require a groundswell of public opinion, nor do they need a grassroots movement or a PR representative to be validated. What they do require though are the opinions and suggestions of experts in respective fields, and if necessary, a period of close scrutiny and debate by other scientists.

Louis Pasteur was roundly denounced as a fraud and derided because he, as a mere chemist, had the temerity to suggest that physicians were responsible for their own patients deaths. Ultimately, after much nasty debate and the futile attempts of other scientists to prove him wrong, Pasteur was vindicated. "Peer review", under the harshest of conditions, was successful.

Don't fix what ain't broke.