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.