Scientist with concerns about chemical removed from EPA panel 7

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 2:25 am
   01 Mar 2008

   The Grist 61We hear about the 1000 Scientists who support AGW, and the Inhofe 400 who are skeptics.
   But what about the Grist 61?   The 61 contributors to Grist!  Who are these faceless Internet mavens that write daily about AGW?   And most of all -- what have they been doing about it?
   I invite -- nay, demand! -- that each one, in the spirit of physicians healing themselves -- tell us how they have reduced their CO2 output from 2001 to 2007.
   Let's start with #1, Adam Browning.
   CO2 Output 2001:
   
   CO2 Output 2007:

   Permalink

2. 

   Wolverine Posted 4:32 am
   01 Mar 2008

   Let's Face RealityAs Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. once so properly defined the terms, communism is where the government runs business and fascism is where business runs the government.  Guess which we have?
   It is completely illegitimate for "scientists" working for the government to have any ties to industry.  These people are not scientists at all, but are instead just shills for whatever industries they're linked to.
   This is how fascism works.  Like it?

   Permalink

3. 

   Emily H Posted 8:28 am
   01 Mar 2008

   UghSo sick, and yet so predictable. Shall we even begin to count the USDA and FDA officials with significant ties to agribusiness, industrial food processors and the pharmaceutical industry? So who in the government is, exactly, truly invested in public health?

   Permalink

4. 

   Ashley Braun Posted 10:33 am
   01 Mar 2008

   What we really needIt's unrealistic, and perhaps a little naive, to ask that all scientists who have worked in industry be banned from participating in government panels, committees, etc.
   Where would these scientists gain their expertise? They can't (and probably wouldn't want to) all work in university or independent research labs. Much of the application of and innovation in science occurs in the practice of it in the much-vilified "industry" and marketplace (not that I'm calling them saints).
   However, what we really need are scientists (and citizens, for that matter) with a strong sense of ETHICS, who are not afraid to use them. A lack of ethical scientists (or, perhaps, the people who oversee them) in government is the real problem.
   I firmly believe that a degradation in ethics leads to a degradation in public and environmental health.

   Permalink

5. 

   gohuskies Posted 5:01 am
   02 Mar 2008

   Corporate GovernmentAlthough the influence of corporations over government actions have fluctuated throughout the decades.  Can anyone name a time in American history when corporate interests didn't have as much or even more influence over elected officials as the people whom elected them.  After all even George Washington used violence to establish a new state because he (the largest liquor distiller in the America's) was not happy with increased taxes.
   The only way to bring about reform that protects the interests of the common people is to wake them up, and so long as they have SUV's, American Idol & Diet Coke they would rather be Fat and Happy like so many Nero's feasting on mercury laden snacks as their kingdom falls to less gluten tribesman.
   I pledge allegience to the commodities of the United States of America and to the wealthy for which it stands one nation under the blue chips with Cancer and Aspartame for All.

   Permalink

6. 

   2wheeler Posted 2:04 am
   03 Mar 2008

   who indeedI would say that the grunt workers in these health and environment agencies who studied the science in their university educations, and who entered the field as a public service career goal (rather than for personal aggandizement) are keeping the public health and environment missions in the fore of their minds.
   At least I am.
   Can't speak for other fields like FDA, NHTSA, etc.
   
   Yes we learn from working on "the other side" (consulting or industry) for a while too. But mostly we see how decisions there may be made with too much focus on profits instead of balancing the ethical bottom line as the agency is supposed to do.
   Many agency staff believe that if our jobs are done properly there will be dissatisfied people looking at us from both ends of the spectrum.  Not sure if that is a just outcome in every case or not, but it's often true.
   I believe that many research scientists at universities also share a useful perspective in viewing these problems and, because they have more time to keep up on the latest journals, may be as well informed as anyone.  Their ethical challenge is to find project funding and ask the research questions that bring benefit to society as opposed to advancing some private co-opting of the public good that is our environment, our health, our our biodiversity, for example.
   BTW, it's a great warm spring day here in the midwest, perfect for bike commuting!

   Permalink

7. 

   2wheeler Posted 2:10 am
   03 Mar 2008

   Ethical codesAnyone who is in the field of science or environmental work or human health, should be thinking about ethical codes.  Most professional associations have codes of ethics to which one may refer, and subscribe voluntarily.  Having such standards (even having them posted on your office wall) may be very useful as a protection in the event anyone accuses you of breaching some other, less overarching, code.  Having an ethical code to point to that says why you cannot lie in your research findings (despite what someone above you may desire to influence outcomes) can be very useful.  Not to mention if anyone ever feels like they need to act as a whistleblower.  
   I don't see much protection these days for whistleblowers at any level in public or private professional work, however.  That is an area sorely lacking in the current legal system.  Really though, it's a topic for another separate article probably.

   Permalink