10 ms·
EPA dismisses half of its scientific advisers on key board
- Proven 9y agoSigh... Even under Trump they can't do the right thing and fire all of them (or even better, eliminate the destructive EPA).
- enraged_camel 9y agoArticles like this keep getting flagged (because some people on HN are more interested in living in their little tech bubble), so I will say this before that happens: this administration will set back American science and technology by at least a couple of decades. And that's a conservative estimate. Pruitt will surround himself with yes-men, and that is super scary when it comes to science. Essentially, all science that does not fit the administration's agenda will be rejected. This is just one of the precursors.
- merlincorey 9y ago> Pruitt will surround himself with yes-men, and that is super scary when it comes to science. Essentially, all science that does not fit the administration's agenda will be rejected. This is just one of the precursors. As an independent, I question how this situation is much different from years past. It's just a different set of yes-men.
- aaronbrethorst 9y agoWe are entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts. Scientific fact is not the exclusive domain of any political party. A question that's worth asking is: which political party is more interested in scientific fact when it comes to the climate?
- defined 9y agoPeer review is meant to compensate for scientific bias (i.e. "yes-men"). This administration is reducing peer review. Therefore the new yes-men are worse than the old.
- supremesaboteur 9y agoThis article does not support what you are saying. > EPA spokesman J.P. Freire said in an email that “no one has been fired or terminated,” and that Pruitt had simply decided to bring in fresh advisers" > “We’re not going to rubber-stamp the last administration’s appointees. Instead, they should participate in the same open competitive process as the rest of the applicant pool,” Freire said. “This approach is what was always intended for the Board > Courtney Flint ... said ... that she was also surprised to learn that her term would not be renewed, “particularly since I was told that such a renewal was expected.” > “In the broader view, I suppose it is the prerogative of this administration to set the goals of federal agencies and to appoint members to advisory boards,” she added. > Conservatives have complained about EPA’s approach to science, including the input it receives from outside scientific bodies > “They’re going to have to start dealing with science and not rigged science” > “The EPA routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants from the federal government,” Smith said at the time. “The conflict of interest here is clear.” Even if you believe that the conservatives are trying to pack EPA with "climate change deniers", you should be glad that their research is now going to reach a wider audience and therefore can be subject to more crictism. This seems like a good move for science
- androck1 9y ago"In a budget proposal obtained by The Washington Post last month, the panel is slated for an 84 percent cut — or $542,000 — from its operating budget. That money typically covers travel and other expenses for outside experts who attend the board’s public meetings. The reasoning behind the budget cut, said the document, reflects 'an anticipated lower number of peer reviews.'" Doesn't sound like a "good move for science" to me.
- supremesaboteur 9y agoWhy do they expect a lower number of peer reviews ? If there is a legitimate reason, then cutting the funding in proportion seems reasonable
- cryptarch 9y agoAlso doesn't sound like it will result in "more input from outside scientific bodies", because the budget for that got cut by 84%... By the way, was that a euphemism for commerce-backed science? Like the science done for cosmetics companies and the tobacco industry? It doesn't feel like they're talking about foreign Universities.
- aerovistae 9y agoAnd they'll all get replaced and their policies revoked in another few years. "At least a couple of decades"? You're dreaming.
- defined 9y agoPolicies have institutional inertia. International accords can be broken, numerous polluting plants and pipelines built, and irreversible environmental damage can be done in four years. It's a matter of rolling back the effects of the policies that may take decades (or never, if the environment is pushed past the point of no return).
- ReligiousFlames 9y agoThe danger of a supermajority in COTUS, POTUS and SCOTUS is alt-right and Freedom Party extremist agendas being railroaded through and ripping up sensible, sane policies into tatters for those special interest$ and crazy fringe groups. Two healthy political parties provide countervailing powers which limit what the other can do. Without this protection, fascist themes become more prevalent and more difficult to stop.
- defined 9y agoDid you mean to reply to the parent comment rather than mine? It seems more relevant:)
- jayd16 9y agoYou act like agencies and experts can be rebuilt and rehired as quickly as they were dismissed. That isn't true of anything I can think of.
- jacquesm 9y agoHow long does it take to break a window? How long does it take to replace that window? Destruction and creation are asymmetrical with respect to the time and effort required to do either, and that's not even looking at immaterial stuff such as international reputations and treaties.
- ReligiousFlames 9y agoHence relatively conservative BAS advanced the doomsday clock closer to midnight: unwillingness to tackle climate change and an insane chief of staff lunging to push the button to start WW III.
- victor9000 9y agoWe seriously need a non-profit who creates NGOs to continue the scientific research that's being smothered by the current administration.
- smt88 9y agoI agree. If anything good comes from this administration, it'll be that important work will be less vulnerable to the whims of politicians. That's why I've donated to NGOs that replace the things Trump is killing. Unfortunately, in the case of climate, we'll never be able to compensate for the dismantling of the EPA. NGOs can't regulate.
- cryptarch 9y agoThey can however make recommendations for regulations, and influence U.N. regulatory guidelines. This could make a low-staffed EPA significantly more effective, because then it would only have to pick and choose regulations to implement/try to pass.
- et-al 9y agoExcept who would fund this non-profit?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- downrightmike 9y agoTeapot dome, if no one is watching the hen house, the foxes will walk right in: https://www.britannica.com/event/Teapot-Dome-Scandal https://www.britannica.com/event/Teapot-Dome-Scandal
- inspector-g 9y agoCan you elaborate on how you believe this relates to the linked article? (Genuinely asking.)
- watertorock 9y agoWhat do scientists know?
- treytrey 9y agoTreason and Reason are confusingly similar to some...
- defined 9y agoThe new EPA administration is reducing peer reviews? Some of us HN readers, call ourselves Computer Scientists, some Software Engineers, some are other type of scientists. I believe that for many HN readers, science is a core component of who we are, professionally, and of what we do, or at the very least, we understand the vital importance of rigor in science. We should collectively be extremely concerned that the EPA administration appears to be attacking the scientific method and replacing it with what I fear will become pseudoscience. It is difficult for me to understand why this article has not received more attention and prominence on HN. Surely this is important to many of HN readers, even if it's not a technical article?
- belovedeagle 9y agoComputer science is in no way a field of science. Not even close. It's a branch of mathematics. Science is the practice of generating and testing putative facts using experimental evidence. Computer science and mathematics do not rely on empirical evidence and in fact empirical evidence is entirely illegitimate as a proof method.
- defined 9y agoEven if I agree with you, and I am wrong in including Computer Non-Science, my point stands just as strongly. Mathematics is a foundation of science, and people working in the objective, analytical disciplines, like computers and engineering, should, I expect, understand the value of science. My main point stands, even if my appeal to Computer Scientists was wrong.
- jayd16 9y agoMaybe if all we did was concern ourselves with mathematical complexity of algorithms but analysis of caching, network traffic, performance heuristics and countless other aspects of computer science require the scientific method and empirical data.
- defined 9y agoThat, too.
- mirimir 9y agoThis is a total non-surprise. He's following through on campaign promises, is all. And seriously, the EPA has been on a short leash since the start. Sure, it was worse under Reagan and Bush vs Clinton and Obama. But remember: > 1970 was a year of tremendous environmental action by Nixon and Congress.The President signed the National Environmental Policy Act on January 2nd, delivered a call to make "the 1970s a historic period when, by conscious choice, [we] transform our land into what we want it to become" in his State of the Union Address, and ended the year with the creation of an independent agency to regulate the environment. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/gallery-why-nixon-created-the-epa/67351/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/galle... Nixon has a bad reputation, obviously, but he was arguably quite enlightened about environmental and social issues. He might have championed a national minimum income, if he hadn't crashed and burned.
- cmejo 9y agoI love how instead of discussing the (important) topic of the OP we are debating whether CS is a science or art or humanities or not.
- eecc 9y agoGreat... leveraging the usual "broaden the competitive landscape" rhetoric - who can possibly say no to competition! - they're re-opening all the disputes over settled science that were a thorn in the ass of their corporate cronies. No biggie, we'll have to re-discus them to death once again and while this battle of attrition works another round, it's more profit for them, and irreparable damage for the whole darn world. At some stage we will have to implement retroactive reparations, this game is so obvious it borders deliberate affront
- jvandonsel 9y agoFinally! I can use DDT again to get rid of those pesky bald eagles around my property.