Proposed House EPA Rules

[Lord MJ]

So the House passed a couple new laws governing the EPA.

1. EPA can only use scientific studies and data that are available for public review.
2. Scientists on the EPA advisory board can not reference their own research. And representatives of companies that would be regulated by EPA can serve on the EPA advisory board (if they disclose the affiliation).

So the question is, what value if any is there in these new provisions.

Second is, been having a debate with a conservative who says that if a scientist is using his own research he can not be trusted. If the science is peer reviewed, the peer review process can not be trusted since it has been shown to be corrupt. Furthermore adding representatives from the industry adds a greater diversity of view points.

I point out that having representatives from the companies that would be regulated being on the the advisory board of the regulatory agency is a huge conflict of interest. His response is, the motives of scientists are not pure either, and having people afilliated with the industry would add a check and balance on the scientists.

[Simon_Jester]

The obvious point is that whereas corporations can stand to gain hundreds of millions from having representatives push dodgy science, individual researchers acting independently stand to gain almost nothing. Especially if they're already salaried EPA employees.

There's a huge mismatch in incentives. It's like saying that foxes should get to sit on the committee that designs locks for henhouses, for the sake of "diversity" and because farmers are biased.

I mean heck, is this guy one of the idiots who thinks that climate scientists somehow get to make out like millionaires because of drummed-up global warming claims?

[Lord MJ]

The actual bill here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-con ... /1422/text

Relevant portions

ning, 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.

His position is something like this:

Should the academic researcher working on scrubber technologies with industry aid be allowed to advise on his research which is being reviewed. It may be he pushes heavy for this to become a requirement when there is a better alternative. He gets kickback if his goes through because he works with the company who stands to profit. How is narrowing the perspective to the scientific community taking the best view?

For one thing, I don't believe the EPA has the authority to mandate that specific technology be used. Meaning that if they mandate that companies scrub their smokestacks, and there is technology that does the same job better than the scrubber tech, companies would be free to use that tech.

I can tell you for fact what works in the labs and in theory doesn't always work the same out here. Having multiple approaches and viewpoints is beneficial. People outside of scientific research think differently take different approaches. That's how it is check and balances.

His argument is that we need checks and balances on scientists. So obviously getting people associated with the same industry that has a vested interest in not being regulated is a good idea.

Besides they don't make the decision and under part D are not allowed to be involved in advisory activity when the matter involves a party that board member has interest in.

Which is good for when the EPA is pursuing violations committed by a specific party. But under this language if the EPA is proposing regulation that could affect the industry as a whole (not targeting a specific company), people paid by the industry are free to sit on the EPA boards.

The question I have, besides the whole idea of representatives of the companies being regulated having an influence on the regulator, is there something wrong with advisors using their own peer reviewed research and work in evaluations? Has there been a problem or issue regarding this that requires a solution.? If the answer to that question is no, then what problem is this law solving?

I think the whole aspect of attacking how science is used in the EPA is a Red Herring, designed to confuse people into thinking something is corrupt with the EPA while getting in representatives of companies to influence it's decisions, while simultaneously, greatly interfering in the process of how scientific research is used. Why should politicians who don't have science backgrounds decide how science is used and evaluated?

[Lord MJ]

A related topic. Are Americans really against environmental policies, or are Democrats just wimps?

In almost every state where "The EPA is destroying jobs!!!" line is used, the Democrats running in the elections there were like "Yep. Obama is destroying our jobs!" Incidentally those Dems all lost. Except for Mary Landrieu, who will probably lose in December.

What is the Dems instead said something like this.

"We have a need to balance two important needs, keeping our environment clean, and keeping our job market secure. Both affect the health and welfare of our citizens. As we speak however, regulations intended to protect your water, air that you and your children breathe, are being attacked by companies that are willing to hold your jobs hostage, just so they can make an extra buck. They are willing to throw you into unemployment so that they can continue to endanger you and your children, because they don't want to spend the money to clean up their act. It's no better than telling you to vote for who they like or they'll fire you. Are you going to stand for that?"

I would think that would be a much better message than running scared away from Obama and the EPA. Even in states like Kentucky and West Virginia. The Dems wouldn't have won all their races, but would've won enough to keep McConnell out of the Senate Majority leader position.

[Edi]

A couple of articles on what the Republican proposals really mean:

Number One
Number Two

TL;DR: Experts on a subject are barred from actually using their own research because "bias", but corporate shills are allowed to act as experts even when they know nothing about the subject and have a clear conflict of interest. And only data that is completely public down to first source can be used for anything, so that public health policy cannot use actual public health data, because federal law prevents disclosure of patient information while the new Republican proposal requires it to be disclosed or it cannot be used.

House Republicans are on a roll. Wednesday, they passed the second in a trio of bills aimed at roadblocking the EPA. Like Tuesday’s attack on scientists, this one too would suppress science in the name of “transparency.”

H.R. 4012 passed 237-190, mainly along party lines, the Hill reports. Known as the “Secret Science Reform Act,” it would “prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible.” As House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, explained, ”costly environmental regulations should only be based on data that is available to independent scientists and the public.”

Sounds reasonable. But alas, that’s all GOP-speak for “preventing the EPA from being able to do its job by any means available.” In this case, those means involve requiring the EPA to release the private data upon which the studies it uses to guide its regulations are based — including patient information, which is protected by federal law.

See what they did there? “Under HR 4012, some of the best real-world public health research, which relies on patient data like hospital admissions, would be excluded from consideration because personal data could not, and should not, be made public,” explains Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall. ”Demanding public release of full raw data the agency cannot legally disclose is simply a way to accuse the agency of hiding something when it has nothing to hide.”

The irony is staggering: it’s not like those not-a-scientist politicians would have the first idea about what to do with that data, even if they did get their hands on it. “What matters is not raw data but the studies based on these data,” Rosenberg argues, “which have gone through the scientific process, including rigorous peer review, safeguards to protect the privacy of study participants, and careful review to make sure there’s no manipulation for political or financial gain.”

“The legislation will not improve the EPA’s actions,” Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, the committee’s top Democrat, argued. ”Rather, it will stifle public health protections.”

The White House threatened Monday to veto the bill, saying it would place “arbitrary, unnecessary, and expensive requirements” on the EPA — which is exactly what the House was going for.

Congressional climate wars were dominated Tuesday by the U.S. Senate, which spent the day debating, and ultimately failing to pass, a bill approving the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. While all that was happening, and largely unnoticed, the House was busy doing what it does best: attacking science.

H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations.

The bill is being framed as a play for transparency: Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice.

But the White House, which threatened to veto the bill, said it would “negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB.”

In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research — the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “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.”

Speaking on the House floor Tuesday, Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., summed up what was going on: “I get it, you don’t like science,” he told bill sponsor Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah. “And you don’t like science that interferes with the interests of your corporate clients. But we need science to protect public health and the environment.”

The House, alas, is staying the course, voting this week on two other bills aimed at impeding the EPA, including one that prevents the agency from relying on what it calls “secret science” in crafting its regulations — but which in reality, opponents argue, would effectively block the EPA from adopting any new rules to protect public health. The trio, wrote Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, in an editorial for the Hill, represents “the culmination of one of the most anti-science and anti-health campaigns I’ve witnessed in my 22 years as a member of Congress.”

The White House has threatened to veto all three.

It's the standard anti-science bullshit that has been the mainstay of Republican party line for the past (at least) ten years.

[Broomstick]

It's the standard anti-science bullshit that has been the mainstay of Republican party line for the past (at least) ten years.

Try 30. Ever since Reagan dismissed evolution as "well, it's only a theory".

[Lord MJ]

A couple of articles on what the Republican proposals really mean:

Number One
Number Two

Don't think Salon articles will really work with this guy since he has read the actual bill for himself.

His general argument is that scientists have their reputations, potential funding for their research, if they are government employees then they have the potential for more work and income if environmental regulations are in place, conversely if regulations aren't put in place there is a good chance they could lose income as a result of the EPA sinking. In his mind, scientists are not clean, and have every bit as incentive to pursue their own self interest and corporations do. Therefore corporate representatives would provide a check and balance on the scientists.

[TheHammer]

So the House passed a couple new laws governing the EPA.

1. EPA can only use scientific studies and data that are available for public review.
2. Scientists on the EPA advisory board can not reference their own research. And representatives of companies that would be regulated by EPA can serve on the EPA advisory board (if they disclose the affiliation).

So the question is, what value if any is there in these new provisions.

Second is, been having a debate with a conservative who says that if a scientist is using his own research he can not be trusted. If the science is peer reviewed, the peer review process can not be trusted since it has been shown to be corrupt. Furthermore adding representatives from the industry adds a greater diversity of view points.

I point out that having representatives from the companies that would be regulated being on the the advisory board of the regulatory agency is a huge conflict of interest. His response is, the motives of scientists are not pure either, and having people afilliated with the industry would add a check and balance on the scientists.

I'm actually fine with 2/3rds of this. IF the EPA is going to be making regulations, then there should be a sufficient number of publicly available studies such that an advisor need not rely on their own research to make a case for something. It helps maintain transparency, and remove the the appearance of bias (either real or imagined). So I'm not sure why anyone would take issue with those two points, unless there is something I'm missing.

However that last point about allowing representatives of companies on the EPA advisory board would do the opposite of that. Sure they'd have to disclose affiliation, but they are going to be biased in favor of their company/industry's perspective.

[Lord MJ]

I agree there should be a sufficient number of publicly available studies. But I don't agree that ALL studies used have to be publicly available (down to the rawest of the raw data being used). Nor that I agree that an advisor should not be able to use their own research if it is but one of many items of research being used.

[Simon_Jester]

I mean, who better to advise about the consequences of, oh, pesticides affecting frogs... than the person who literally wrote the book on pesticides and how they affect frogs?

[Edi]

A couple of articles on what the Republican proposals really mean:

Number One
Number Two

Don't think Salon articles will really work with this guy since he has read the actual bill for himself.

His general argument is that scientists have their reputations, potential funding for their research, if they are government employees then they have the potential for more work and income if environmental regulations are in place, conversely if regulations aren't put in place there is a good chance they could lose income as a result of the EPA sinking. In his mind, scientists are not clean, and have every bit as incentive to pursue their own self interest and corporations do. Therefore corporate representatives would provide a check and balance on the scientists.

That's nothing more than conspiracist bullshit, so you might as well tell him to fuck off because he is working to fit the evidence to his preordained conclusions rather than the other way around. Trying to talk to that sort of people is a waste of time.

[Lord MJ]

His support for his argument is this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... -remember/

Which he says proves the Peer Review process can be as corrupt as corporations. Therefore we can't rely on just scientists, and need corporations to provide a check and balance.

An obscure academic journal. A memorable peer review scandal.
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google Plus Share via Email More Options

Resize Text Print Article Comments 22
By Fred Barbash July 11
Peer review, says an explanation for budding young scientists on the Web site of the University of California-Berkeley, “does the same thing for science that the ‘inspected by #7′ sticker does for your t-shirt: provides assurance that someone who knows what they’re doing has double-checked it.”

It “is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science,” Richard Smith, a prominent editor of a major academic publishing house has written. “It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. …When something is peer reviewed it is in some sense blessed.”

He went on to describe the flaws of the process, which he said are numerous and generally well known to academics.

The editor looks at the title of the paper and sends it to two friends whom the editor thinks know something about the subject. If both advise publication the editor sends it to the printers. If both advise against publication the editor rejects the paper. If the reviewers disagree the editor sends it to a third reviewer and does whatever he or she advises. This pastiche—which is not far from systems I have seen used—is little better than tossing a coin, because the level of agreement between reviewers on whether a paper should be published is little better than you’d expect by chance.

His list did not include what has unfolded at a publication called the Journal of Vibration and Control, perhaps because there may have been nothing quite like it.

On Thursday, The Washington Post reported that the academic journal had retracted 60 “scholarly” papers after discovering a “peer review ring” that had rigged the vetting process designed to insure the value and integrity of published research. The story was first reported by an online publication called Retraction Watch after the group that operates the journal, SAGE, announced the results of an investigation. While the journal involved, which covers acoustics, is a bit obscure, the scandal may very well go down in academic history as one of the most brazen on record.

Today, Daniel Sherman, the spokesman for SAGE, which operates about 700 other journals, provided some additional detail by e-mail in response to questions from The Post.


The scam described by the Journal of Vibration and Control revolved around a physicist at the National Pingtung University of Education (NPUE) in Taiwan, Peter Chen, who allegedly used fake e-mail addresses, fabricated identities and phony reviews to get the 60 papers past the peer review process at the journal and Control and into publication. Chen has not surfaced recently, according to SAGE. He was unavailable for comment.

Some of the reviews recommending the papers for publication were written by the physicist himself using the names of others at genuine academic institutions, the journal says. Some, the SAGE spokesman said, were written by others, and no academic affiliation was provided, just the name of a country.

Said Sherman:

In some instances real academic names were used and we believe email addresses were set up for assumed and fabricated identities at genuine institutions. We have proof from one academic confirming his identity was used and a gmail account set up in his name. Affiliations were used for some of the recommended reviewers (others just had countries listed) but we do not have verification that these people were working at these institutions. A lot of the reviewers simply have Taiwanese or Chinese addresses and no affiliations.

Some of the reviews were written in as little as two minutes, from start to finish. They were quickies, some “templated,” the spokesman said.

And some of the articles that got published, in addition to listing the physicist as the author, listed real scholars who had nothing to do with the papers. “We believe some of the co-authors may be innocent parties as they may not have had anything to do with the submission process or may not have known they were co-authors on the papers,” said Sherman.

The scheme began to unravel, SAGE and the Journal said in statements, on July 8 when journal editors discovered Chen using aliases in SAGE’s computerized review system. It unraveled further when e-mails sent to all the addresses of reviewers elicited no response.


Sherman:

We believe real people were involved, but it is not clear how many. We contacted all 130 names, but we did not receive a response from any of these individuals to verify their identity.

The big question here: How did all this manage to escape the notice of the editor of the Journal of Vibration and Control? “Templated” reviews? Hundreds of Gmail addresses instead of addresses from university accounts? None of the reviewers using an ID number under the ORCID system used by SAGE and other publications to identify legitimate scholars?

SAGE uses a platform called ScholarOne for processing manuscript submission and peer reviews. But, said Sherman, “anyone is able to create an account on ScholarOne. In these days of faceless Internet interaction it is relatively easy to do, however the system still relies on an editor to verify the account if used in peer review. It is not possible for us to verify the real identity of the individual or individuals setting up accounts.”

The JVC editor at the time, Professor Ali H. Nayfeh, is no longer with the publication. He has retired. SAGE said that “three senior editors and an additional 27 associate editors with expertise and prestige in the field have been appointed to assist with the day-to-day running of the JVC peer review process.”

Chen, meanwhile, has not been located, either by the Post or by The Journal or by Sage, which has been trying to reach him for some time during the 14-month long investigation.

[Edi]

His support for his argument is this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... -remember/

Which he says proves the Peer Review process can be as corrupt as corporations. Therefore we can't rely on just scientists, and need corporations to provide a check and balance.

So, he quotes one ingeniously bad apples out of several million reputable scientists and on this basis the whole idea of peer review is corrupt (because on his pet issue it does not support his preordained conclusions)?

And how corporations (such as tobacco companies on the cancer risk of smoking etc.) are needed for "balance"? Given that in this case it was the fucking control processes involved that caught this guy. And how many other examples can he dig up, from that pool of millions?

He does not understand the concept of the scientific method, such basic things as sample bias, representative sample and other fucking basic things. You might also hit him with the fact that his denailist pals Lord Monckton and some other fuckwits tried to set up a supposedly reputable peer review journal with the sole purpose of pushing their own bullshit and get it peer reviewed (by fellow denialist conspiracy nuts), only they got caught right at the start and the publisher terminated the entire paper and tossed them out on their arse.

No. Just no. He's a fucking conspiracy loon who does not deserve the time of the day. The correct response to him is "You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Educate yourself and don't bother to come back before you do." Like I said, there is no reasoning with that kind of assholes and no possible productive outcome to having any conversation with them, UNLESS you are playing for the audience with the intent to show him for the fuckwit moron that he is.

Now, if you're just posting his bullshit here in order to get responses with which to fight him, just stop and do your own legwork on the issue. There are plentiful sources to debunk anything and everything the climate change denialist conspiracy loons care to throw up. Go reference them, bury him in sources and deal with the issue. This place is not intended as a response repository to debunk idiots like that.

[PainRack]

To be honest, in any working government, it would make sense to include industry experts and representatives to give their point of view on potential regulations, as they would be able to give input on how regulations affect practice.


The rest of the stuff however is literally insane....... Seriously, geez, the guy who did the research and can best explain his results isn't allowed to use it?