January 17, 2004
PEERLESS (via ef brown):
Plan to peer-review rules draws criticism: Some researchers fear new layer could be politicized (Rick Weiss, 1/15/04, Washington Post)
A number of leading researchers are mobilizing against a Bush administration plan that would require new health and environmental regulations to rely more solidly on science that has been peer-reviewed -- an awkward situation in which scientists find themselves arguing against one of the universally accepted gold standards of good science. [...]Among those filing criticisms is a group of 20 former federal officials, including prominent former regulators from the administrations of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Among them are former labor secretary Robert B. Reich; former EPA administrators Russell Train and Carol M. Browner; heads of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration under Carter and the elder Bush; and Neal Lane, who was director of the National Science Foundation under Clinton and head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Their letter urges the OMB to withdraw its proposal.
One interesting question raised by the new debate, experts said, is whether peer review standards for public policy should be stiffer or more lax than those applied to the publication of results in journals.
An administration official said it makes sense to raise the bar of proof when a rule is going to affect consumers, workers and businesses. By contrast, Harvard science professor Sheila Jasanoff wrote to the OMB that although research science seeks absolute truths, regulatory science should realistically settle for "serviceable truths."
Science is just the pursuit of politics by other means. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 17, 2004 02:29 PM
Oh, come now. The fact that any subject can be politicized does not mean that any subject is politics. The idea that "everything is politics" is one of the many terrible beliefs of the left. Libertarians and conservatives know better.
Posted by: PapayaSF at January 17, 2004 03:40 PMThe proposal makes sense and that is why the left and greens will rail against it. Their ideologicised "scientists" and "experts will be marginalized.
Posted by: Genecis at January 17, 2004 04:08 PMI wonder what Harry, Jeff, et.al. would have to say about the idea that regulatory religion need only be based on "servicable" truths.
Posted by: Peter B at January 17, 2004 04:21 PMA violin sonata is just the scraping of horse hair against cat gut.
Posted by: Eric Timmons at January 17, 2004 05:23 PMBut the question is - who will be servicing whom?
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 17, 2004 08:07 PMSure, one can hardly escape the touch of government, and thus politics. That's not my point. I'm saying that to consider everything the province of politics is a bad idea. If you do, you end up in a politically-correct warped world. I've lived in Berkeley, so I know all about this, but it'll be warped regardless of the politics involved: I can't see this movie because I don't like the politics of the second lead. I can't visit this state because I don't like the law they passed. I won't visit the art museum because it has art by people who eat meat. Etc. etc.
In this case, the scientific merit seems to rest on the side of people who want peer-reviewed science to be used for making regulations, which makes sense. No doubt some are for or against it for reasons of politics, but in this case, I say go with the science and let the political chips fall where they may.
Posted by: PapayaSF at January 17, 2004 09:02 PMPeter:
No doubt there are some demogogues espousing what you would term "false religion." Jim Jones, say.
Just because some term themselves scientists, while denying on of its fundemantal tenets, does not make them scientists.
It would, however, make them politicians.
The Bush administration has this exactly right. Proving that proper science is not the pursuit of politics.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 17, 2004 09:12 PMPapaya:
But there's no denying that this position serves our political purposes, is there?
Posted by: oj at January 18, 2004 10:01 AMNo, you're right on that point. I was just trying to stop you from going overboard....
Posted by: PapayaSF at January 18, 2004 07:05 PM