Lead expert for CDC panel on lead safety

[Guest guest]

Excerpt of Wall Street Journal article on science advisory process.....

-------------Even Appointees to Federal Scientific panels must pass Bush litmus test From The Wall Street Journal / December 6, 2002by Sharon BegleyScience Panelists Are PickedFor Ideology, Not ExpertiseBlame the media. When reporters write about controversial subjects, we havethis bad habit of portraying science the way we do politics, except withmore polysyllabic jargon.Just as we give space to both sides when we cover, say, capital punishmentor affirmative action -- moral and social issues with no empirically based,objectively right answer -- so we apply the equal-time rule to questionslike whether climate is changing or lead is neurotoxic.That conveys a grossly wrong impression. Although it can sometimes seemotherwise, as when the public gets whiplash from ever-changing dietaryadvice, in science there actually are right answers (eventually), and untilthen a preponderance of evidence and agreement with both an existing bodyof knowledge and a theoretical edifice.All this brings us to how the Department of Health and Human Services isfilling its 258 scientific-advisory panels.When we last checked in on Secretary Tommy , his office had madesome remarkable choices. For a Centers for Disease Control and Preventionpanel on safety standards for lead in children's blood, he tapped a doctorwith no relevant research experience (the doctor treats lead-poisoned kids)and who in June stated in a legal deposition for industry that a lead levelof 70 micrograms per deciliter is harmless (the That and otherindustry-linked appointments received wide media coverage when HouseDemocrats wrote to Mr. in October that "scientific decision-makingis being subverted by ideology."But the lead panel was only the opening gambit. HHS is now going beyondpacking panels that weigh existing data to stack committees that determinewhat research actually will be conducted in the future.......Submitted by