Scientists Complain of Diminished Role in Policy Under Bush

[Guest guest]

http://www.nrdc.org/news/newsDetails.asp?nID=2053

Scientists Complain of Diminished Role in Policy Under

Bush

2/27/2006 6:00:00 AM

© 2006, St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Distributed by

Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

WASHINGTON - For 35 years, the Environmental

Protection Agency heeded the advice of a special panel

of scientists set up by Congress to help shape

government rules aimed at cutting air pollution.

But for the first time, the EPA is rejecting

recommendations from its Clean Air Scientific Advisory

Committee as the agency moves forward this year with

revised rules governing how much soot and dust can be

permitted in the air.

What's more, the EPA has decided to exempt rural areas

as well as dust generated by agriculture and mining -

something the scientists never had in mind.

The rules could be enormously costly to industry and

taxpayers - $100 billion by some estimates. Even so,

scientists are in an uproar.

The air pollution dispute and other recent clashes

highlight what scientists contend is their

increasingly diminished role in policy to protect

public health and the environment.

Never before has the EPA's government-appointed

advisory committee formally disputed an agency

decision. But that's what committee members are doing

in a letter drafted last week and sent around to its

members for their signatures.

" The purpose of this committee is to provide the best

scientific advice available, and he didn't take it, "

said committee chair Rogene , referring to

EPA administrator . " Our hope is that

if we explain things a little more clearly, he might. "

Only this time, the advice by the committee's 22

members - among them physicians, toxicologists,

chemists and prominent researchers - will be received

along with other comments from the general public due

in April.

The rejection of some of their conclusions troubles

. She is a Republican-appointed toxicologist

from New Mexico who is in charge of assembling other

scientific panels to help tailor air pollution rules.

" I have a concern about this demoralizing people, " she

said. " These are very high-powered scientists, and

they don't have a lot of time. But they make the time,

because they believe that their work can make a

difference. "

The Bush administration's industry-friendly approach

to governing has never been a secret, nor have the

leanings of President Bush himself. He who has

endorsed the teaching of " intelligent design, " a view

of creation that challenges established science.

NASA climate scientist Hansen triggered a series

of charges last month when he accused Bush's political

appointees of interfering with the release of

information that conflicted with the administration's

skepticism of the link between pollution and climate

change.

The dispute prompted space agency administrator

to send an e-mail to employees earlier

this month vowing " open scientific and technical

inquiry and dialogue with the public. "

In another case, one that raises questions about

academic freedom, the federal Bureau of Land

Management suspended payments this month to Oregon

State University after a study by the university's

College of Forestry. The study's conclusions cast

doubt on the administration's contention that logging

helps to replenish burned forests.

The government restored the money after bipartisan

complaints from Oregon political leaders. But the land

management agency is likely to be grilled in

congressional hearings about its policies.

By the same token, science can trump politics - even

if it takes years.

This week, Missouri River water levels upstream

permitting, the Army Corps of Engineers could announce

after 15 years of dispute that it will proceed with

the first spring-rise on the lower river in an effort

to bring about conditions that benefit the endangered

pallid sturgeon. Missouri political leaders oppose the

flow change.

Allegations that science is either ignored or

politicized has prompted several pro-science bills in

Congress. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., succeeded last

year with an amendment banning political litmus tests

for appointments to scientific advisory committees.

Now, he is sponsoring legislation that would make it a

crime to disseminate wrong information knowingly.

In building the case against censorship, the Union of

Concerned Scientists in Washington has compiled

signatures from nearly 9,000 scientists on a petition

demanding that the government keep hands off research.

" No one expects that politics isn't going to enter

into science - but when you put in the science, you

need to weight it objectively and impartially, " said

Francesca Grifo, a botanist who runs the advocacy

group's scientific integrity program.

But business advocates say the administration is

insisting on good science, not just politically

correct theory. The national Chamber of Commerce's

Bill Kovacs credits the administration with being

" pro-science " in a time when, he says, environmental

advocates demand pollution control rules based on

their philosophy.

With regard to potential harm from the soot and dust

rules, Kovacs asserted, " There are no bodies out

there. These are bodies that are part of a computer

model. They're not real people. "

From the start, the rules faced a hard road.

In the first step of the review process for

air-quality standards, EPA scientists prepare

documents summarizing the latest scientific research.

Those documents looked much different after being

edited by the White House Office of Management and

Budget.

The White House office made dozens of changes, many of

them softening assertions of harm from pollution and

some deleting entire sections.

For instance, the White House budget office deleted

references to a study concluding that low-income

people could be more vulnerable to exposure to soot

and dust.

Likewise, the office removed a sentence asserting that

the air quality rules " may have a substantial impact

on the life expectancy of the U.S. population. "

The standards in question become part of the Clean Air

Act. They tell states and localities whether their air

is clean or dirty and what they must do to comply with

the law. The EPA accepted part of the scientific

panel's recommendation on how much dust and soot,

known as particulates, could be allowed in the air in

a 24-hour period.

But in rejecting the panel's recommendation for

allowable air standards over a year's time, the EPA

has drawn criticism from public health groups and

state and local officials.

" People were just outraged how an agency can just

ignore something that affects the health of thousands

of people, " said Becker, who heads an

organization of state and local air pollution control

officials.

EPA spokeswoman Witcher said that agency

administrator , a 25-year EPA veteran

trained in science, had a firm grip on the

complexities of the standards and had personally

interviewed agency experts.

" The administrator's decision was based on an

extensive review of a large body of science, careful

consideration of EPA staff recommendations and (the

committee's) advice on interpretations of that

science, " she said.

---

(St. Louis Post-Dispatch correspondent Poore in

Washington contributed to this report.)

---

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

[Guest guest]

I am so disappointed in Bush. I could be wrong, but I have never

bought into the idea that he is truly a " Christian " . His actions

never measure up to his words. It is one thing to call yourself a

Christian (helped him get the moral conservative vote), it is

completely another to walk the walk. Have yet to see that happen.

I sometimes wonder if there is anyone that will ever run for

president that would actually be someone I could respect.

Hugs,Kathy

>

> http://www.nrdc.org/news/newsDetails.asp?nID=2053

>

> Scientists Complain of Diminished Role in Policy Under

> Bush

>

> 2/27/2006 6:00:00 AM

> © 2006, St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Distributed by

> Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service.

>

>

> St. Louis Post-Dispatch

>

>

> WASHINGTON - For 35 years, the Environmental

> Protection Agency heeded the advice of a special panel

> of scientists set up by Congress to help shape

> government rules aimed at cutting air pollution.

>

> But for the first time, the EPA is rejecting

> recommendations from its Clean Air Scientific Advisory

> Committee as the agency moves forward this year with

> revised rules governing how much soot and dust can be

> permitted in the air.

>

> What's more, the EPA has decided to exempt rural areas

> as well as dust generated by agriculture and mining -

> something the scientists never had in mind.

>

> The rules could be enormously costly to industry and

> taxpayers - $100 billion by some estimates. Even so,

> scientists are in an uproar.

>

> The air pollution dispute and other recent clashes

> highlight what scientists contend is their

> increasingly diminished role in policy to protect

> public health and the environment.

>

> Never before has the EPA's government-appointed

> advisory committee formally disputed an agency

> decision. But that's what committee members are doing

> in a letter drafted last week and sent around to its

> members for their signatures.

>

> " The purpose of this committee is to provide the best

> scientific advice available, and he didn't take it, "

> said committee chair Rogene , referring to

> EPA administrator . " Our hope is that

> if we explain things a little more clearly, he might. "

>

>

> Only this time, the advice by the committee's 22

> members - among them physicians, toxicologists,

> chemists and prominent researchers - will be received

> along with other comments from the general public due

> in April.

>

> The rejection of some of their conclusions troubles

> . She is a Republican-appointed toxicologist

> from New Mexico who is in charge of assembling other

> scientific panels to help tailor air pollution rules.

>

> " I have a concern about this demoralizing people, " she

> said. " These are very high-powered scientists, and

> they don't have a lot of time. But they make the time,

> because they believe that their work can make a

> difference. "

>

> The Bush administration's industry-friendly approach

> to governing has never been a secret, nor have the

> leanings of President Bush himself. He who has

> endorsed the teaching of " intelligent design, " a view

> of creation that challenges established science.

>

> NASA climate scientist Hansen triggered a series

> of charges last month when he accused Bush's political

> appointees of interfering with the release of

> information that conflicted with the administration's

> skepticism of the link between pollution and climate

> change.

>

> The dispute prompted space agency administrator

> to send an e-mail to employees earlier

> this month vowing " open scientific and technical

> inquiry and dialogue with the public. "

>

> In another case, one that raises questions about

> academic freedom, the federal Bureau of Land

> Management suspended payments this month to Oregon

> State University after a study by the university's

> College of Forestry. The study's conclusions cast

> doubt on the administration's contention that logging

> helps to replenish burned forests.

>

> The government restored the money after bipartisan

> complaints from Oregon political leaders. But the land

> management agency is likely to be grilled in

> congressional hearings about its policies.

>

> By the same token, science can trump politics - even

> if it takes years.

>

> This week, Missouri River water levels upstream

> permitting, the Army Corps of Engineers could announce

> after 15 years of dispute that it will proceed with

> the first spring-rise on the lower river in an effort

> to bring about conditions that benefit the endangered

> pallid sturgeon. Missouri political leaders oppose the

> flow change.

>

> Allegations that science is either ignored or

> politicized has prompted several pro-science bills in

> Congress. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., succeeded last

> year with an amendment banning political litmus tests

> for appointments to scientific advisory committees.

> Now, he is sponsoring legislation that would make it a

> crime to disseminate wrong information knowingly.

>

> In building the case against censorship, the Union of

> Concerned Scientists in Washington has compiled

> signatures from nearly 9,000 scientists on a petition

> demanding that the government keep hands off research.

>

>

> " No one expects that politics isn't going to enter

> into science - but when you put in the science, you

> need to weight it objectively and impartially, " said

> Francesca Grifo, a botanist who runs the advocacy

> group's scientific integrity program.

>

> But business advocates say the administration is

> insisting on good science, not just politically

> correct theory. The national Chamber of Commerce's

> Bill Kovacs credits the administration with being

> " pro-science " in a time when, he says, environmental

> advocates demand pollution control rules based on

> their philosophy.

>

> With regard to potential harm from the soot and dust

> rules, Kovacs asserted, " There are no bodies out

> there. These are bodies that are part of a computer

> model. They're not real people. "

>

> From the start, the rules faced a hard road.

>

> In the first step of the review process for

> air-quality standards, EPA scientists prepare

> documents summarizing the latest scientific research.

> Those documents looked much different after being

> edited by the White House Office of Management and

> Budget.

>

> The White House office made dozens of changes, many of

> them softening assertions of harm from pollution and

> some deleting entire sections.

>

> For instance, the White House budget office deleted

> references to a study concluding that low-income

> people could be more vulnerable to exposure to soot

> and dust.

>

> Likewise, the office removed a sentence asserting that

> the air quality rules " may have a substantial impact

> on the life expectancy of the U.S. population. "

>

>

> The standards in question become part of the Clean Air

> Act. They tell states and localities whether their air

> is clean or dirty and what they must do to comply with

> the law. The EPA accepted part of the scientific

> panel's recommendation on how much dust and soot,

> known as particulates, could be allowed in the air in

> a 24-hour period.

>

> But in rejecting the panel's recommendation for

> allowable air standards over a year's time, the EPA

> has drawn criticism from public health groups and

> state and local officials.

>

> " People were just outraged how an agency can just

> ignore something that affects the health of thousands

> of people, " said Becker, who heads an

> organization of state and local air pollution control

> officials.

>

>

> EPA spokeswoman Witcher said that agency

> administrator , a 25-year EPA veteran

> trained in science, had a firm grip on the

> complexities of the standards and had personally

> interviewed agency experts.

>

> " The administrator's decision was based on an

> extensive review of a large body of science, careful

> consideration of EPA staff recommendations and (the

> committee's) advice on interpretations of that

> science, " she said.

>

> ---

>

> (St. Louis Post-Dispatch correspondent Poore in

> Washington contributed to this report.)

>

> ---

>

>

>

> St. Louis Post-Dispatch

>

[Guest guest]

I agree that many disappointing things have happened. But I also

realize that God is in control of who is " king " and who is allowed

to rise to power in every country on earth. There is a plan that

will be worked out in God's timing, and even though things are going

to get even worse (now there's a disheartening prospect!), we have

to trust our future to the One who has already written the ending,

no matter what happens. We can do our part to put the best candidate

for the job into office, even though that might mean the lesser of

two evils.

Patty

> >

> > http://www.nrdc.org/news/newsDetails.asp?nID=2053

> >

> > Scientists Complain of Diminished Role in Policy Under

> > Bush

> >

> > 2/27/2006 6:00:00 AM

> > © 2006, St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Distributed by

> > Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service.

> >

> >

> > St. Louis Post-Dispatch

> >

> >

> > WASHINGTON - For 35 years, the Environmental

> > Protection Agency heeded the advice of a special panel

> > of scientists set up by Congress to help shape

> > government rules aimed at cutting air pollution.

> >

> > But for the first time, the EPA is rejecting

> > recommendations from its Clean Air Scientific Advisory

> > Committee as the agency moves forward this year with

> > revised rules governing how much soot and dust can be

> > permitted in the air.

> >

> > What's more, the EPA has decided to exempt rural areas

> > as well as dust generated by agriculture and mining -

> > something the scientists never had in mind.

> >

> > The rules could be enormously costly to industry and

> > taxpayers - $100 billion by some estimates. Even so,

> > scientists are in an uproar.

> >

> > The air pollution dispute and other recent clashes

> > highlight what scientists contend is their

> > increasingly diminished role in policy to protect

> > public health and the environment.

> >

> > Never before has the EPA's government-appointed

> > advisory committee formally disputed an agency

> > decision. But that's what committee members are doing

> > in a letter drafted last week and sent around to its

> > members for their signatures.

> >

> > " The purpose of this committee is to provide the best

> > scientific advice available, and he didn't take it, "

> > said committee chair Rogene , referring to

> > EPA administrator . " Our hope is that

> > if we explain things a little more clearly, he might. "

> >

> >

> > Only this time, the advice by the committee's 22

> > members - among them physicians, toxicologists,

> > chemists and prominent researchers - will be received

> > along with other comments from the general public due

> > in April.

> >

> > The rejection of some of their conclusions troubles

> > . She is a Republican-appointed toxicologist

> > from New Mexico who is in charge of assembling other

> > scientific panels to help tailor air pollution rules.

> >

> > " I have a concern about this demoralizing people, " she

> > said. " These are very high-powered scientists, and

> > they don't have a lot of time. But they make the time,

> > because they believe that their work can make a

> > difference. "

> >

> > The Bush administration's industry-friendly approach

> > to governing has never been a secret, nor have the

> > leanings of President Bush himself. He who has

> > endorsed the teaching of " intelligent design, " a view

> > of creation that challenges established science.

> >

> > NASA climate scientist Hansen triggered a series

> > of charges last month when he accused Bush's political

> > appointees of interfering with the release of

> > information that conflicted with the administration's

> > skepticism of the link between pollution and climate

> > change.

> >

> > The dispute prompted space agency administrator

> > to send an e-mail to employees earlier

> > this month vowing " open scientific and technical

> > inquiry and dialogue with the public. "

> >

> > In another case, one that raises questions about

> > academic freedom, the federal Bureau of Land

> > Management suspended payments this month to Oregon

> > State University after a study by the university's

> > College of Forestry. The study's conclusions cast

> > doubt on the administration's contention that logging

> > helps to replenish burned forests.

> >

> > The government restored the money after bipartisan

> > complaints from Oregon political leaders. But the land

> > management agency is likely to be grilled in

> > congressional hearings about its policies.

> >

> > By the same token, science can trump politics - even

> > if it takes years.

> >

> > This week, Missouri River water levels upstream

> > permitting, the Army Corps of Engineers could announce

> > after 15 years of dispute that it will proceed with

> > the first spring-rise on the lower river in an effort

> > to bring about conditions that benefit the endangered

> > pallid sturgeon. Missouri political leaders oppose the

> > flow change.

> >

> > Allegations that science is either ignored or

> > politicized has prompted several pro-science bills in

> > Congress. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., succeeded last

> > year with an amendment banning political litmus tests

> > for appointments to scientific advisory committees.

> > Now, he is sponsoring legislation that would make it a

> > crime to disseminate wrong information knowingly.

> >

> > In building the case against censorship, the Union of

> > Concerned Scientists in Washington has compiled

> > signatures from nearly 9,000 scientists on a petition

> > demanding that the government keep hands off research.

> >

> >

> > " No one expects that politics isn't going to enter

> > into science - but when you put in the science, you

> > need to weight it objectively and impartially, " said

> > Francesca Grifo, a botanist who runs the advocacy

> > group's scientific integrity program.

> >

> > But business advocates say the administration is

> > insisting on good science, not just politically

> > correct theory. The national Chamber of Commerce's

> > Bill Kovacs credits the administration with being

> > " pro-science " in a time when, he says, environmental

> > advocates demand pollution control rules based on

> > their philosophy.

> >

> > With regard to potential harm from the soot and dust

> > rules, Kovacs asserted, " There are no bodies out

> > there. These are bodies that are part of a computer

> > model. They're not real people. "

> >

> > From the start, the rules faced a hard road.

> >

> > In the first step of the review process for

> > air-quality standards, EPA scientists prepare

> > documents summarizing the latest scientific research.

> > Those documents looked much different after being

> > edited by the White House Office of Management and

> > Budget.

> >

> > The White House office made dozens of changes, many of

> > them softening assertions of harm from pollution and

> > some deleting entire sections.

> >

> > For instance, the White House budget office deleted

> > references to a study concluding that low-income

> > people could be more vulnerable to exposure to soot

> > and dust.

> >

> > Likewise, the office removed a sentence asserting that

> > the air quality rules " may have a substantial impact

> > on the life expectancy of the U.S. population. "

> >

> >

> > The standards in question become part of the Clean Air

> > Act. They tell states and localities whether their air

> > is clean or dirty and what they must do to comply with

> > the law. The EPA accepted part of the scientific

> > panel's recommendation on how much dust and soot,

> > known as particulates, could be allowed in the air in

> > a 24-hour period.

> >

> > But in rejecting the panel's recommendation for

> > allowable air standards over a year's time, the EPA

> > has drawn criticism from public health groups and

> > state and local officials.

> >

> > " People were just outraged how an agency can just

> > ignore something that affects the health of thousands

> > of people, " said Becker, who heads an

> > organization of state and local air pollution control

> > officials.

> >

> >

> > EPA spokeswoman Witcher said that agency

> > administrator , a 25-year EPA veteran

> > trained in science, had a firm grip on the

> > complexities of the standards and had personally

> > interviewed agency experts.

> >

> > " The administrator's decision was based on an

> > extensive review of a large body of science, careful

> > consideration of EPA staff recommendations and (the

> > committee's) advice on interpretations of that

> > science, " she said.

> >

> > ---

> >

> > (St. Louis Post-Dispatch correspondent Poore in

> > Washington contributed to this report.)

> >

> > ---

> >

> >

> >

> > St. Louis Post-Dispatch

> >

>