Beverley Mitchell House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA

While everyone’s attention was focused on the Senate and the Keystone XL decision on Tuesday, some pretty shocking stuff was quietly going on in the House of Representatives. The GOP-dominated House passed a bill that effectively prevents scientists who are peer-reviewed experts in their field from providing advice — directly or indirectly — to the EPA, while at the same time allowing industry representatives with financial interests in fossil fuels to have their say. Perversely, all this is being done in the name of “transparency.”

House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA

Who needs science when money can buy any opinion we want..

Link please

I wonder what bill this is?



I bet it's from last year.

OOPs..here the original link.

House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA

Transparency was quite the word of 2014, and here we are learning this 3 months later. Thanks for the link.

This actually sounds like something they would pass to make sure nobody challenges the EPA. Controlling what evidence is allowed to be used has been done for a long time, it is not a new policy. The whole government uses this practice and laws have been passed to protect what they believe is true and relevant to anything.

We have the right to follow these laws and rules they have created for us. We also are required to believe what is told to us.

But polluting corporations can be there to deny accusations with falsified evidence.. While scientist with proof can't. Sad state of affairs. When science is trumped by money. lobbying need to be made illegal. With fines 3x of what they got caught taking.

Is this it? .....

H.R.1422 -- EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2014

(2) Each member of the Board shall be qualified by education, training, 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.

a reply to: xuenchen
I am trying really hard to find something wrong with that....

a reply to: xuenchen

Yep....
Text: H.R.1422 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

``(iii) may not report directly to the Environmental Protection Agency.''

The bill changes the rules for appointing members to the Science Advisory Board (SAB), which provides scientific advice to the EPA Administrator. Among many other things, it states: “Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work.” This means that a scientist who had published a peer-reviewed paper on a particular topic would not be able to advise the EPA on the findings contained within that paper. That is, the very scientists who know the subject matter best would not be able to discuss it.

Beverley Mitchell House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA

``(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;

Text: H.R.1422 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Well since it never passed the Senate and it's from the last Congress, I think it needs to be passed again in the new (114th) Congress. But I doubt Obama will sign it.

He has too many donors from the academic wall.

a reply to: Onslaught2996
It sounds to me that they are trying to eliminate conflict of interest... In other words, a board member specifically involved in something, like say the oil industry, cannot advise the EPA to go easy on the company they work for when they have an oil spill. At least that is how it sounds to me.

We covered this in November.

Well when they destroy the environment completely they can wipe their asses with the money they claim will fix things and use the science reports to soak up the toxic mess that will around because they were to stupid to agree on anything before it gets to late.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Who needs science when money can buy any opinion we want..

So basically business as usual. Neither party is interested in science, just agendas and making money.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

I read your link (well, most of it), and then read the bill.

It seems to purposefully ignore this part of it:

SEC. 2. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.
(b)(2)(G) no federally registered lobbyist is appointed to the Board.

That's a big deal, because your linked story's focus seems to be on the ability of big money to influence the board. Hell, it's a board of a federal entity--of course big money will be influential in it, because our government is effed to hell with crony capitalism.

But for your link to pretend that not allowing a board member to sit on review of papers and studies in which they participated is a good thing, not a bad one. Do you want appellate judges handling the appeal of a case that they may have presided over before they were an appellate judge? Do you want a SCOTUS "justice" ruling on an issue in which they were heavily involved with before becoming a "justice?"

I truly hope that the answer is a very emphatic "NO!," because if you think that impartiality can exist in instances like this, you're flat out lying to yourself. Of course a board member should not sit in on an issue that they may have been a part of, especially if the discussion is concerning the veracity of the work. I'm sorry, but I can't take your link or the politicians quoted in it seriously.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Well first; the bill never went anywhere in the Senate. Maybe a refresher in how a Bill becomes Law is needed. Bills pass the individual Houses all the time -- doesn't make them law.

Second. Here is the Bill - H.R. 1422 for those interested. Here is an excerpt of the offending language that the OP is, I am guessing, trying to pass along:

(b)Membership
Section 8(b) of the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4365(b)) is amended to read as follows:

(b)
(1)The Board shall be composed of at least nine members, one of whom shall be designated Chairman, and shall meet at such times and places as may be designated by the Chairman.
(2)Each member of the Board shall be qualified by education, training, 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.

I listed the whole requirements, but the emphasis is on me. I believe that is the point of contention? Maybe the OP can clarify for us.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Who needs science when money can buy any opinion we want..

So basically business as usual. Neither party is interested in science, just agendas and making money.

Apparently so because you never read the bill no?

We should just ban all science and critical thinking and be done with it. I can't believe this is still the country that was sending people to the moon when I was a kid. It's becoming an idiocracy ruled by an oligarchy.