5 ms·

This 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

This 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 ago
  Why 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 ago
  Also 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.
Oletros 9y ago
> "Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who questions the link between human activity and climate change and has several former aides now working for Pruitt, said in an interview earlier this year that under the new administration, “They’re going to have to start dealing with science and not rigged science” at EPA.: Rigged science? What 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.”" This coming from Lamar Smith? > This seems like a good move for science You must be joking. Or you think that science is what Lamar Smith thinks it is science, get ride of any fact, and put conclusions and then look at anything that can be a proof for those conclusions. What they are doing is not science
- cryptarch 9y ago
  I'm of the impression that they want to replace government-backed science with commerce-backed science here. I think they have the right idea; everone knows following the market is a moral imperative, that smoking is attractive and you are #healthyatanysize. Obviously those leacherous government scientists should be put out of a job. They are harming commerce and therewith the proletariat. They gotta go!
  - caseysoftware 9y ago
    If government-backed science is science, then commerce-backed science is science too. Unless you're suggestion that scientists - as humans = can fall prey to the same corruption and motivations that anyone else can. If that is the case, are you suggesting that government-backed scientists are above human motivations?
    - cryptarch 9y ago
      I'm suggesting it is an odd assumption that government-backed science would be less prone to conflicts of interest than commerce-/corporate-backed science. I find it hard to understand the conflict of interest with government-backed science. Scientist A gets a grant to do research, spends it on research and reasonable salaries for PhD's, and goes on to join the EPA board. So what? It only becomes a conflict of interest if they then start allocating funds to their friends or to themselves, but that's almost too obvious. What does them having previously received grants have to do with anything? Why would they then be more corruptable than private sector scientists? At least in the case of government-backed science, the research goals are generally aligned with government interests. I don't see how that's sinister in the general case. On the other hand, it seems much easier to find dark motives in research conducted by corporations. For instance, why would you publish research that is bad for your company? What am I missing here?
afpx 9y ago
Maybe I read too much into what you wrote, but it seems that you have high confidence that the EPA will emerge a better agency from this. If so, I'm curious why given Trump's and Pruitt's negativity toward science, the environment, regulation, and the EPA. What's your angle?
- supremesaboteur 9y ago
  I usually have high confidence that scientists will do their jobs. If a Republican controlled EPA confirms the catastrophic effects of climate change, you would expect more bipartisan support to tackle the problem. As far as I can tell, conservative viewpoint on climate change is varied, from 'the effects of man made climate change will be mild and not catastrophic' to 'golabal warming is caused by increased solar activity' The point I was making was that there is no reason to stir up hysteria just because you heard the words 'Republican' and 'EPA' in the same sentence
  - ricardobeat 9y ago
    Or in short, "I'm hoping for the best".
  - jonathansizz 9y ago
    > As far as I can tell, conservative viewpoint on climate change is varied, from 'the effects of man made climate change will be mild and not catastrophic' to 'golabal warming is caused by increased solar activity' Unfortunately, that range lies outside what mainstream climate science has been telling us for decades.
  - afpx 9y ago
    Your confidence in this administration's eagerness to fund scientific research is ... well, surprising. To me, at least. But, are you confident enough in their willingness to continue unbiased scientific research into climate change that you would bet money on it? I am very interested in a friendly (but financially significant) wager now. :)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
defined 9y ago
Reducing peer review is antithetical to good science, first of all. Second of all, the failure to renew the terms of the current members, who were led to believe they would get a second term, and labeling them as "Obama appointees" rather than examining their merits as scientists, looks more like a pogrom than a rational adjustment. And inviting the terminated scientists to reapply is a transparent ploy. I wonder, were they all to reapply, how many of them would be rehired, and what reasons would be given should they be unsuccessful? My take is, none of them will be rehired, because if they were wanted, the EPA would simply have renewed their contracts. And if anything, the science is more likely now to be "rigged" than it may have been (and I doubt it was) before. Let's be objective here: which group of people in the USA have stood mostly for science, and which group against it (hint: "intelligent design" proponents and climate change deniers).
DanBC 9y ago
Should we be happy if the EPA had to deal with "science" papers from Flat Earthers? Or from people who've "invented" over-unity devices? Having to debunk stuff that has already been debunked, or which is incoherent, is a time sink and prevents EPA doing actual work.

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 ago
Why 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 ago
Also 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.

Oletros 9y ago

> "Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who questions the link between human activity and climate change and has several former aides now working for Pruitt, said in an interview earlier this year that under the new administration, “They’re going to have to start dealing with science and not rigged science” at EPA.: Rigged science? What 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.”" This coming from Lamar Smith? > This seems like a good move for science You must be joking. Or you think that science is what Lamar Smith thinks it is science, get ride of any fact, and put conclusions and then look at anything that can be a proof for those conclusions. What they are doing is not science

cryptarch 9y ago
I'm of the impression that they want to replace government-backed science with commerce-backed science here. I think they have the right idea; everone knows following the market is a moral imperative, that smoking is attractive and you are #healthyatanysize. Obviously those leacherous government scientists should be put out of a job. They are harming commerce and therewith the proletariat. They gotta go!
- caseysoftware 9y ago
  If government-backed science is science, then commerce-backed science is science too. Unless you're suggestion that scientists - as humans = can fall prey to the same corruption and motivations that anyone else can. If that is the case, are you suggesting that government-backed scientists are above human motivations?
  - cryptarch 9y ago
    I'm suggesting it is an odd assumption that government-backed science would be less prone to conflicts of interest than commerce-/corporate-backed science. I find it hard to understand the conflict of interest with government-backed science. Scientist A gets a grant to do research, spends it on research and reasonable salaries for PhD's, and goes on to join the EPA board. So what? It only becomes a conflict of interest if they then start allocating funds to their friends or to themselves, but that's almost too obvious. What does them having previously received grants have to do with anything? Why would they then be more corruptable than private sector scientists? At least in the case of government-backed science, the research goals are generally aligned with government interests. I don't see how that's sinister in the general case. On the other hand, it seems much easier to find dark motives in research conducted by corporations. For instance, why would you publish research that is bad for your company? What am I missing here?

afpx 9y ago

Maybe I read too much into what you wrote, but it seems that you have high confidence that the EPA will emerge a better agency from this. If so, I'm curious why given Trump's and Pruitt's negativity toward science, the environment, regulation, and the EPA. What's your angle?

supremesaboteur 9y ago
I usually have high confidence that scientists will do their jobs. If a Republican controlled EPA confirms the catastrophic effects of climate change, you would expect more bipartisan support to tackle the problem. As far as I can tell, conservative viewpoint on climate change is varied, from 'the effects of man made climate change will be mild and not catastrophic' to 'golabal warming is caused by increased solar activity' The point I was making was that there is no reason to stir up hysteria just because you heard the words 'Republican' and 'EPA' in the same sentence
- ricardobeat 9y ago
  Or in short, "I'm hoping for the best".
- jonathansizz 9y ago
  > As far as I can tell, conservative viewpoint on climate change is varied, from 'the effects of man made climate change will be mild and not catastrophic' to 'golabal warming is caused by increased solar activity' Unfortunately, that range lies outside what mainstream climate science has been telling us for decades.
- afpx 9y ago
  Your confidence in this administration's eagerness to fund scientific research is ... well, surprising. To me, at least. But, are you confident enough in their willingness to continue unbiased scientific research into climate change that you would bet money on it? I am very interested in a friendly (but financially significant) wager now. :)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

defined 9y ago

Reducing peer review is antithetical to good science, first of all. Second of all, the failure to renew the terms of the current members, who were led to believe they would get a second term, and labeling them as "Obama appointees" rather than examining their merits as scientists, looks more like a pogrom than a rational adjustment. And inviting the terminated scientists to reapply is a transparent ploy. I wonder, were they all to reapply, how many of them would be rehired, and what reasons would be given should they be unsuccessful? My take is, none of them will be rehired, because if they were wanted, the EPA would simply have renewed their contracts. And if anything, the science is more likely now to be "rigged" than it may have been (and I doubt it was) before. Let's be objective here: which group of people in the USA have stood mostly for science, and which group against it (hint: "intelligent design" proponents and climate change deniers).

DanBC 9y ago

Should we be happy if the EPA had to deal with "science" papers from Flat Earthers? Or from people who've "invented" over-unity devices? Having to debunk stuff that has already been debunked, or which is incoherent, is a time sink and prevents EPA doing actual work.