Republicans vs the EPA

[mosquitobite]

House Republicans just passed a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on their own research

“In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

Torn on this issue.

On one hand, the scientists who are paid to do the research for those peer reviewed studies are often funded by those who stand to benefit from whatever results they derive.

On the other hand, I don't believe industry or business should be the ones with the most weight.

What is the common sense middle ground?

[specsaregood]

“academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

And by "academic scientists" what he really means is "experts paid by government".

[mosquitobite]

And by "academic scientists" what he really means is "experts paid by government".

Exactly right. Not just with the climate, but pretty much all scientific research.

[ClydeCoulter]

Okay, so I read the OP article.
And it linked to an article on The Hill, which I read.
I then started reading comments.

This set of comments blew me away:

Davenc • a day ago

The author needs to take a step back from this. The Bill states
" ``(E) Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work;"
That is a Golden Rule of Scientific Peer Review, you can't grade your own paper!!!
In fact, the EPA's own Peer Review Handbook even excludes contributors from the review process unless the chairman of the review deems it required due to a lack of domain experience in the community.
So the bill simply states what should have been and is a Best Practice for the EPA or any organization.

Jack Chessa • 21 hours ago

I think you are confused. While it is unethical to review your own paper it is completely acceptable to present your research findings. This is done every day of the year at the thousands of academic conferences world-wide. This is saying that researchers cannot present or discuss their findings to the EPA.
−

Davenc • 19 hours ago

Sorry, I am not confused. The prohibition is only when it "involve(s) review or evaluation of their own work". They are not talking about presentations. The language I quoted came directly from the bill. As I read it, members who authored a paper would be free to present it but would be barred from the review and evaluation of the same.
Perfectly reasonable and consistent with a proper Peer-review protocol.
And I will repeat, the EPA Peer Review Handbook is more strict than this bill in that it would generally prohibit persons who just contributed to the work.

Avatar
Tbone • an hour ago

It says right in the article scientists with relevant experience would be barred from testimony.

Who care's about the bill, the ARTICLE SAYS...!

[Natural Citizen]

Okay. So, here is the bill...

AN ACT



To amend the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration
Authorization Act of 1978 to provide for Scientific Advisory Board
member qualifications, public participation, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform
Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.

(a) Independent Advice.--Section 8(a) of the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42
U.S.C. 4365(a)) is amended by inserting ``independently'' after
``Advisory Board which shall''.
(b) Membership.--Section 8(b) of the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C.
4365(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b)(1) The Board shall be composed of at least nine members, one
of whom shall be designated Chairman, and shall meet at such times and
places as may be designated by the Chairman.
``(2) Each member of the Board shall be qualified by education,
training, and experience to evaluate scientific and technical
information on matters referred to the Board under this section. The
Administrator shall ensure that--
``(A) the scientific and technical points of view
represented on and the functions to be performed by the Board
are fairly balanced among the members of the Board;
``(B) at least ten percent of the membership of the Board
are from State, local, or tribal governments;
``(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, 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;
``(D) in the case of a Board advisory activity on a
particular matter involving a specific party, no Board member
having an interest in the specific party shall participate in
that activity;
``(E) Board members may not participate in advisory
activities that directly or indirectly involve review or
evaluation of their own work;
``(F) Board members shall be designated as special
Government employees; and
``(G) no federally registered lobbyist is appointed to the
Board.
``(3) The Administrator shall--
``(A) solicit public nominations for the Board by
publishing a notification in the Federal Register;
``(B) solicit nominations from relevant Federal agencies,
including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the
Interior, and Health and Human Services;
``(C) make public the list of nominees, including the
identity of the entities that nominated each, and shall accept
public comment on the nominees;
``(D) require that, upon their provisional nomination,
nominees shall file a written report disclosing financial
relationships and interests, including Environmental Protection
Agency grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or other
financial assistance, that are relevant to the Board's advisory
activities for the three-year period prior to the date of their
nomination, and relevant professional activities and public
statements for the five-year period prior to the date of their
nomination; and
``(E) make such reports public, with the exception of
specific dollar amounts, for each member of the Board upon such
member's selection.
``(4) Disclosure of relevant professional activities under
paragraph (3)(D) shall include all representational work, expert
testimony, and contract work as well as identifying the party for which
the work was done.
``(5) Except when specifically prohibited by law, the Agency shall
make all conflict of interest waivers granted to members of the Board,
member committees, or investigative panels publicly available.
``(6) Any recusal agreement made by a member of the Board, a member
committee, or an investigative panel, or any recusal known to the
Agency that occurs during the course of a meeting or other work of the
Board, member committee, or investigative panel shall promptly be made
public by the Administrator.
``(7) The terms of the members of the Board shall be three years
and shall be staggered so that the terms of no more than one-third of
the total membership of the Board shall expire within a single fiscal
year. No member shall serve more than two terms over a ten-year
period.''.
(c) Record.--Section 8(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(c)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``or draft risk or hazard
assessment,'' after ``at the time any proposed'';
(B) by striking ``formal''; and
(C) by inserting ``or draft risk or hazard
assessment,'' after ``to the Board such proposed''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``or draft risk or hazard
assessment,'' after ``the scientific and technical
basis of the proposed''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``The
Board's advice and comments, including dissenting views
of Board members, and the response of the Administrator
shall be included in the record with respect to any
proposed risk or hazard assessment, criteria document,
standard, limitation, or regulation and published in
the Federal Register.''.
(d) Member Committees and Investigative Panels.--Section 8(e)(1)(A)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(e)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at the end
the following: ``These member committees and investigative panels--
``(i) shall be constituted and operate in
accordance with the provisions set forth in
paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b), in
subsection (h), and in subsection (i);
``(ii) do not have authority to make
decisions on behalf of the Board; and
``(iii) may not report directly to the
Environmental Protection Agency.''.
(e) Public Participation.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365)
is amended by amending subsection (h) to read as follows:
``(h)(1) To facilitate public participation in the advisory
activities of the Board, the Administrator and the Board shall make
public all reports and relevant scientific information and shall
provide materials to the public at the same time as received by members
of the Board.
``(2) Prior to conducting major advisory activities, the Board
shall hold a public information-gathering session to discuss the state
of the science related to the advisory activity.
``(3) Prior to convening a member committee or investigative panel
under subsection (e) or requesting scientific advice from the Board,
the Administrator shall accept, consider, and address public comments
on questions to be asked of the Board. The Board, member committees,
and investigative panels shall accept, consider, and address public
comments on such questions and shall not accept a question that unduly
narrows the scope of an advisory activity.
``(4) The Administrator and the Board shall encourage public
comments, including oral comments and discussion during the
proceedings, that shall not be limited by an insufficient or arbitrary
time restriction. Public comments shall be provided to the Board when
received. The Board's reports shall include written responses to
significant comments offered by members of the public to the Board.
``(5) Following Board meetings, the public shall be given 15
calendar days to provide additional comments for consideration by the
Board.''.
(f) Operations.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365) is further
amended by amending subsection (i) to read as follows:
``(i)(1) In carrying out its advisory activities, the Board shall
strive to avoid making policy determinations or recommendations, and,
in the event the Board feels compelled to offer policy advice, shall
explicitly distinguish between scientific determinations and policy
advice.
``(2) The Board shall clearly communicate uncertainties associated
with the scientific advice provided to the Administrator or Congress.
``(3) The Board shall ensure that advice and comments reflect the
views of the members and shall encourage dissenting members to make
their views known to the public, the Administrator, and Congress.
``(4) The Board shall conduct periodic reviews to ensure that its
advisory activities are addressing the most important scientific issues
affecting the Environmental Protection Agency.
``(5) The Board shall be fully and timely responsive to
Congress.''.

SEC. 3. RELATION TO THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.

Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be
construed as supplanting the requirements of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).

SEC. 4. RELATION TO THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978.

Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be
construed as supplanting the requirements of the Ethics in Government
Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).

Passed the House of Representatives November 18, 2014.

Attest:

KAREN L. HAAS,

Clerk.

[mosquitobite]

Why just the EPA? Why not the CDC, NIH, etc?

[Natural Citizen]

Why just the EPA? Why not the CDC, NIH, etc?

Because we're starting to see people put up fights that actually have a chance at getting things done against some of these industries who have become comfortable running roughshod. The global warming narrative is old. It doesn't work in masking the actual battles on the ground anymore so the weasels in political office are scrambling to run interference for them. And, really, it's not just the Republicans. It's the Democrats too.

Here is a great example of people specifically trying to defend their native habitats and actually getting their initiatives passed only to end up in court to have a judge weighing the industry profit against the will of the people. Cases like this is exactly why industry propped science is prefered in the eyes of mercantilist representatives and defenders of some of these industies and it's exactly why we see this legislation focused on just that area. They know where the real fight is coming from. It's not from the polar bear argument that wee're so fond of in science la la land.

TPP in America: Judge blocks County from implementing law that would harm corporate profit

HONOLULU • A federal judge said Friday that Maui County may not implement a new law banning the cultivation of genetically modified organisms until he considers arguments in a lawsuit against the measure.

Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co. and a unit of Dow Chemical Co. sued the county last week to stop the law.

They argue that the law would harm the economy and their businesses.

Maui voters created the law with a ballot initiative they passed Nov. 4. The measure was to take effect after officials certified the election results, which was expected later this month.

Kenneth Robbins, an attorney for the companies, said Kurren was saying in his ruling the plaintiffs have shown they could potentially suffer irreparable harm if the law goes into effect.

Maui Residents And Citizen Group Seek Intervention In Federal Court Asserting That The Legal Issues Resulting From The Voter Approved GMO Moratorium Properly Belong In The State Court

In a historic election on November 4, 2014, Maui voters enacted into law a County Ordinance requiring GMO businesses to demonstrate that the testing and development of genetically modified organisms are not harmful to the Maui community and its ecosystem. The Ordinance requires that the GMO industry fund a study that is independently administered by the County to show that the operations are not harmful.

If we take a case like this one where the citizens actually fought back from within legitimate political infrastructure and won against an industry that they say is destroying their ecosystem and then that industry just happens to be the main driver for things like the TPP that these politicians and those same industries want to ram through in their mercantilist conquerings around the globe, we see, quite clearly, why they want the industry dictating the language of science instead of the folks who have researched it for years independently.

Freaking weasels. And they'd have us arguing about polar bears for another decade if it provides a good enough mask for what they really have a problem with.

Of course, that is only one example. There are more. Like this one... Sioux Tribe: Passing Keystone Pipeline ‘An act of war"
I suppose we'll be cleansing the Native Americans again except for the oil industry this time around.

“Most of all, people don’t understand the Ogallala Aquifer is the second biggest water aquifer in the world,” Scott said. “It supplies five or six states with water in the United States, and its level in some places is only six feet underground.”

“We’re going to do everything within our powers to protect our homelands, our people, and as I said, our children and grandchildren

However, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said the project will be back for a vote in January, when conservatives take control of the chamber.

I'll wait to see what kind of response I get before offering up a right proper list. Heh...

Fracking is another one. You know? The old hey, let's drill in every possible conceivable place gag?"

Oh, and that "science" is what they like to call a trade secret. That ought to be a hoot.

Here are some of the dangers of bending over for that industry and letting them call the shots. The people? Ha! Screw 'em. Right?


3 Billion Gallons Of Fracking Wastewater Pumped Into Clean California Aquifiers

California state officials allowed oil and gas companies to pump up to 3 billion gallons (call it 70 million barrels) of oil fracking-contaminated waste water into formerly clean aquifiers, aquifiers which at least on paper are supposed to be off-limits to that kind of activity, and are protected by the government's EPA - an agency which, it appears, was richly compensated by the same oil and gas companies to look elsewhere.

Family awarded $3 million in first US fracking trial

After three years of legal wrangling, a Texas family has won its case against a company engaged in hydraulic fracturing near their home. The family, which suffered tangible health deterioration after the fracking began, was awarded $3 million.

The lawsuit was definitely not the first levied against a fracking company over health impacts, though it has been common for plaintiffs in such cases to settle with companies along with agreeing to strict gag orders.

Last year, a Pennsylvania family reached a $750,000 settlement with gas companies – Range Resources Corporation, Williams Gas/Laurel Mountain Midstream, and Markwest Energy – after suing them for environmental and health impacts caused by their fracking operations near the gas-rich Marcellus Shale. In exchange for the award, however, Chris and Stephanie Hallowich agreed that no member of their family – even their 7- and 10-year-old children - could comment on the case “in any fashion whatsoever.”

First Amendment? Pfffft. Screw you. Make a deal with the fracking industry in their loaded courtroom and you lose your 1st amendment right for life. Beautiful....

Lifelong ‘frack gag’: Two Pennsylvania children banned from discussing fracking

"We know we're signing for silence forever, but how is this taking away our children's rights being minors?" Stephanie Hallowich asked the judge.

"I mean, my daughter is turning 7 today, my son is 10."

According to the transcripts, Judge Polonsky, who oversaw the case, was unable to clarify. The family's attorney, Peter Villari, questioned whether the order would be enforceable.

"I, frankly, your Honor, as an attorney, to be honest with you, I don't know if that's possible that you can give up the First Amendment rights of a child," stated Villari.

“These gag orders are the reason [drillers] can give testimony to Congress and say there are no documented cases of contamination. And then elected officials can repeat that,”said Sharon Wilson, an organizer with Earthworks who also spoke with
ClimateProgress.

New York's top court rules towns can ban fracking

Municipalities within New York can pass local laws to ban hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the state’s top appeals court affirmed Monday.

The 5-2 decision this week out of the New York Court of Appeals now means that cities and towns across the Empire State can pass local zoning rules prohibiting the controversial natural gas-extraction process, much to the chagrin of energy companies that accused those restrictions of being illegal.

Dryden and Middlefield — two upstate New York towns — became the target of litigation after fracking operations planned within their borders were preemptively aborted as a result of recently-enacted drilling bans.

Agreeing with three lower courts, the majority of the state’s appellate panel said local officials legally passed the anti-fracking bills.

"The towns appropriately acted within their home rule authority in adopting the challenged zoning laws," the court said. "The zoning laws of Dryden and Middlefield are therefore valid."

This week’s decision now makes New York the second state, behind neighbors Pennsylvania, to affirm that towns can ban fracking as they wish.

"Today the court stood with the people of Dryden and the people of New York to protect their right to self-determination. It is clear that people, not corporations, have the right to decide how their community develops," Dryden Deputy Supervisor Jason Leifersaid in a statement.

Colorado fracking accident kills Halliburton employee, injures 2 others

Halliburton workers trying to thaw a frozen high-pressure water line at a Colorado fracking site found themselves in an extremely dangerous situation when it ruptured, killing one of them and injuring two others.

The employees had been contracted by Halliburton, but fracking operations had not yet begun.

The oil and gas industry in 2012 had a fatality rate of about 25 per 100,000 workers — higher than construction, manufacturing, and agriculture, according to the US Department of Labor.

Anadarko said in a statement that its employees were "shaken and heartbroken," by Thursday's tragic events, and that it has suspended activities in the area. The company has sunk at least nine horizontal wells at the site.