--- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18006-2004Jan14?language=printer>> > Peer Review Plan Draws Criticism <snippage and pastage> > ...Under the current system, individual agencies > typically invite outside > experts to review the accuracy of their science and > the scientific > information they offer -- whether it is the health > effects of diesel > exhaust, industry injury rates, or details about the > dangers of eating > beef that has been mechanically scraped from the > spinal cords of mad cows. > > The proposed change would usurp much of that > independence. It lays out > specific rules regarding who can sit on peer review > panels -- rules that, > to critics' dismay, explicitly discourage the > participation of academic > experts who have received agency grants but offer no > equivalent warnings > against experts with connections to industry. And it > grants the executive > branch final say as to whether the peer review > process was acceptable...
Kinda reminds me of Hillary's desire for lawyers and non-healthcare professionals to overhaul the healthcare system* -- I thought that was ignorant at best, and otherwise underhanded. Ditto for this, especially when you read the supporters below. (*of course non-professionals should have input -- but _not_ total control) > ...Of the nearly 200 public comments received by the > OMB, several call for > even more sweeping changes. But the political > dividing lines between > supportive letters and others is clear. Supporters > include the National > Association of Manufacturers, the National > Petrochemical and Refiners > Association, Ford Motor Co., the American Chemistry > Council, the National > Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (whose members > include regulated > mining concerns), and Syngenta, a pesticide company > that has been in a > public struggle over data suggesting that one of its > products may be > responsible for major declines in frog populations. > > Among those filing criticisms is a group of 20 > former federal officials, > including prominent former regulators from the > administrations of Richard > Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush > and Bill Clinton. > Among them are former labor secretary Robert B. > Reich; former EPA > administrators Russell Train and Carol M. Browner; > heads of the > Occupational Safety and Health Administration under > Carter and the elder > Bush; and Neal Lane, who was director of the > National Science Foundation > under Clinton and head of the White House Office of > Science and Technology Policy... It's not that I oppose industry scientists having equal opportunity to discuss health and environmental issues, but I object most strenuously to theirs as the only voice. Big Business has a mixed-to-very-poor record when it comes to self-reporting or self-regulating WRT health matters: tobacco, vinyl chloride, asbestos, arsenic, lead... This proposal is just another angle on gutting envirionmental and public health legislature. "Peer" does not mean "hand-selected cronies." Debbi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
