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 belie

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).