EPA Scientific Advisory Board Shakeup

[Belsnickel]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/07/epa-dismisses-half-of-its-scientific-advisers-on-key-board-citing-clean-break-with-obama-administration/?utm_term=.062ec7a2e96a

Quote:Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has chosen to replace half of the members on one of its key scientific review boards, the first step in a broader effort by Republicans to change the way the agency evaluates the scientific basis for its regulations.

The move could significantly change the makeup of the 18-member Board of Scientific Counselors, which advises EPA’s key scientific arm on whether the research it does has sufficient rigor and integrity. All of the members being dismissed were at the end of serving at least one three-year term, although these terms are often renewed instead of terminated.

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. The agency informed the outside academics on Friday that their terms would not be renewed.

“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, and we’re making a clean break with the last administration’s approach.”

But the move came as a surprise to members of the board, who had been informed both in January, before Barack Obama left office, and then more recently by EPA career staff members, that they would be kept on for another term.
“I was kind of shocked to receive this news,” Robert Richardson, an ecological economist and an associate professor at Michigan State University’s Department of Community Sustainability, said in an interview Sunday.

Richardson, who tweeted on Saturday, “Today, I was Trumped,” said that he was at the end of an initial three-year term on the board, but that board members traditionally have served two such stints. “I’ve never heard of any circumstance where someone didn’t serve two consecutive terms,” he said, adding that the dismissals gave him “great concern that objective science is being marginalized in this administration.”

Courtney Flint, a professor of natural resource sociology at Utah State University who had served one term on the board, said in an email 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.

Ryan Jackson, Pruitt’s chief of staff, noted in an email that all the board members whose terms are not being renewed could reapply for their positions.

“I’m not quite sure why some EPA career staff simply get angry by us opening up the process,” he said. “It seems unprofessional to me.”

Pruitt is planning a much broader overhaul of how the agency conducts its scientific analysis, said a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The administration has been meeting with academics to talk about the matter and putting thought into which areas of investigation warrant attention from the agency’s scientific advisers.

The agency may consider industry scientific experts for some of the board positions, Freire said, as long as these appointments do not pose a conflict of interest.

Conservatives have complained about EPA’s approach to science, including the input it receives from outside scientific bodies, for years. Both the Board of Scientific Counselors and a larger, 47-person Scientific Advisory Board have come under criticism for bolstering the cause for greater federal regulation.

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.

House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) held a hearing on the issue in February, arguing that the composition of the Scientific Advisory Board, which was established in 1978, should be expanded to include more non-academics. It is primarily made up of academic scientists and other experts who review EPA’s research to ensure that the regulations the agency undertakes have a sound scientific basis.

“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.”

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.”

Joe Arvai, a member of the Scientific Advisory Board who directs University of Michigan’s Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise, said in an email that Pruitt and his colleagues should keep in mind that the board’s membership and its standing and ad hoc panels “already includes credible scientists from industry” and its “work on agency rulemaking is open to public viewing and comment. So, if diversity of thought and transparency are the administrator’s concerns, his worries are misplaced because the SAB is already has these bases covered.”

“So, if you ask me, his moves over the weekend — as well as the House bill to reform the SAB — are attempts to use the SAB as a political toy,” Arvai added. “By making these moves, the administrator and members of the House can pander to the president’s base by looking like they’re getting tough on all those pesky ‘liberal scientists.’ But, all else being equal, nothing fundamentally changes about how the SAB operates.”

So, in looking at the board members (https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebExternalCommitteeRosters?OpenView&committee=BOARD&secondname=Science%20Advisory%20Board) there are three, possibly four, industry representatives. Of course, without really digging into each member it is hard to say how many of them also receive funding from the industries that are typically regulated by the EPA.

I think with a board that size, there should be a bit more industry representation, but the issue at hand is how do you eliminate the conflicts of interest on either side? If the industry representation deals with any regulations at all, there is a CoI. If the academic receives money from the EPA or the industry being regulated it is a CoI. So how do you get around that? Because the experts on these things will all fall into those categories.

[GMDino]

(05-08-2017, 10:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/07/epa-dismisses-half-of-its-scientific-advisers-on-key-board-citing-clean-break-with-obama-administration/?utm_term=.062ec7a2e96a


So, in looking at the board members (https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebExternalCommitteeRosters?OpenView&committee=BOARD&secondname=Science%20Advisory%20Board) there are three, possibly four, industry representatives. Of course, without really digging into each member it is hard to say how many of them also receive funding from the industries that are typically regulated by the EPA.

I think with a board that size, there should be a bit more industry representation, but the issue at hand is how do you eliminate the conflicts of interest on either side? If the industry representation deals with any regulations at all, there is a CoI. If the academic receives money from the EPA or the industry being regulated it is a CoI. So how do you get around that? Because the experts on these things will all fall into those categories.

But Matt...don't you know the SCIENTISTS are PAID TOO!!!!11!!!! 

All seriousness aside is anyone surprised that as soon as the GOP got control of the scientists they started replacing them with "fresh views" that agreed with their politics rather than the actual science?

I wouldn't be surprised to see KellyAnn Conway on the board.

[Bengalzona]

(05-08-2017, 10:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/07/epa-dismisses-half-of-its-scientific-advisers-on-key-board-citing-clean-break-with-obama-administration/?utm_term=.062ec7a2e96a


So, in looking at the board members (https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebExternalCommitteeRosters?OpenView&committee=BOARD&secondname=Science%20Advisory%20Board) there are three, possibly four, industry representatives. Of course, without really digging into each member it is hard to say how many of them also receive funding from the industries that are typically regulated by the EPA.

I think with a board that size, there should be a bit more industry representation, but the issue at hand is how do you eliminate the conflicts of interest on either side? If the industry representation deals with any regulations at all, there is a CoI. If the academic receives money from the EPA or the industry being regulated it is a CoI. So how do you get around that? Because the experts on these things will all fall into those categories.

I see no reason whatsoever why there should be any private industry representation on the EPA. Those types of conflict of interests are what are irrevocably screwing over this country and its people.

But some people will just need to learn the hard way. 

[fredtoast]

I don't see whay there is any conflict of interest with an acedemic that receives funding from the EPA. They get paid exactly the same no matter what results they report.

[fredtoast]

(05-09-2017, 08:48 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I see no reason whatsoever why there should be any private industry representation on the EPA. Those types of conflict of interests are what are irrevocably screwing over this country and its people.

But some people will just need to learn the hard way. 

This.

People who scream for "smaller government" don't realize that we need a strong government to protect us from the inherit evils of a capitalist system.

We have to have to have a captalist economy to drive innovation and efficiency, but a captalist economy favors profit over human lives.  So we have to have a government that represnts the good of the citizens to balance against the massive power of American industry.

[Belsnickel]

(05-09-2017, 12:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't see whay there is any conflict of interest with an acedemic that receives funding from the EPA. They get paid exactly the same no matter what results they report.

Regulatory decisions by the EPA can direct research into certain areas. An academic on the board has the potential to move the research trends in their direction, thus resulting in grant money.

[fredtoast]

(05-09-2017, 01:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Regulatory decisions by the EPA can direct research into certain areas. An academic on the board has the potential to move the research trends in their direction, thus resulting in grant money.

I can see how the different scientists on the board could fight over which one gets the money, but that would have no effect on the results they report.

The EPA has to do research BEFORE they can make any regulatory decisions.  They are always going to be doing research in many different areas.  It is not like they are going to stop doing research based on the results of their other research.

[fredtoast]

Interesting headline I just came across.  .  .  



EPA Announces New Plan to Reduce Air Pollution by Building Walls around Factories.

[Belsnickel]

(05-09-2017, 01:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I can see how the different scientists on the board could fight over which one gets the money, but that would have no effect on the results they report.

The EPA has to do research BEFORE they can make any regulatory decisions.  They are always going to be doing research in many different areas.  It is not like they are going to stop doing research based on the results of their other research.

Research happens before, during, and after regulatory decisions. I'm just saying the potential for conflicts of interest exists in this system. When looking at all possible angles, there is potential there.

[Dill]

(05-09-2017, 08:48 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I see no reason whatsoever why there should be any private industry representation on the EPA. Those types of conflict of interests are what are irrevocably screwing over this country and its people.

But some people will just need to learn the hard way. 

Problem is, we will ALL be learning the hard way.

[*bfine32*]

(05-09-2017, 08:48 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I see no reason whatsoever why there should be any private industry representation on the EPA. Those types of conflict of interests are what are irrevocably screwing over this country and its people.

But some people will just need to learn the hard way. 

Who better to come up with ways to produce materials in the cleanest, practical manner possible.

Imagine a panel of all scientists:

Smoke is bad

Cars smoke

Ban cars

[Vas Deferens]

(05-09-2017, 04:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who better to come up with ways to produce materials in the cleanest, practical manner possible.

Imagine a panel of all scientists:

Smoke is bad

Cars smoke

Ban cars

Who better to come up with ways to maximize profits to shareholders in the cheapest, quickest manner possible.

Imagine a panel of all oil and gas lobbyists:

wastewater containment is expensive

hydraulic fracking creates enormous amounts of wastewater

repeal regulations requiring best practices and inspection of wastewater containment sites


DRAIN THE SWAMP!

[Dill]

(05-09-2017, 01:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I can see how the different scientists on the board could fight over which one gets the money, but that would have no effect on the results they report.

The EPA has to do research BEFORE they can make any regulatory decisions.  They are always going to be doing research in many different areas.  It is not like they are going to stop doing research based on the results of their other research.

(05-09-2017, 01:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Regulatory decisions by the EPA can direct research into certain areas. An academic on the board has the potential to move the research trends in their direction, thus resulting in grant money.

How much independence does the EPA have in deciding WHAT to research?  I see so many potential problems here.

1. The EPA's research is restricted by defunding, by a lower "Americas First" budget.
2. It is restricted/directed by appointments and personnel cuts--including to the advisory board.
3. It can be further restricted by ideological consensus among/between those who direct the agency, those who "advise" it, and those who recommend/appoint them.

Environmental research/education suddenly has low priority; I fear that all manner of monitoring--the sort which might guide research--will be cut or restricted.  You cannot research problems/tendencies you cannot show exist.

[Dill]

(05-09-2017, 04:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who better to come up with ways to produce materials in the cleanest, practical manner possible.

Imagine a panel of all scientists:

Smoke is bad

Cars smoke

Ban cars

Why do we need scientists, anyway?  Humans got by for thousands of years without them.
 

[fredtoast]

(05-09-2017, 04:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who better to come up with ways to produce materials in the cleanest, practical manner possible.

It is not the job of the EPA to come up with new manufacturing processes.  Obviously that job falls on industrial scientists. 

The problem is that in a capitalist society industry is driven by profit.  The CEOs of large corporations are not evil or heartless, but the system is.  So any CEO who reduces profits in order to protect the environment will be replaced by a CEO who will return the largest profits possible.  That is how capitalism works.

And that is why no industry will ever do anything to protect the environment that costs money that it is not required to do.  This is not a wild theory.  This is a fact based on the history of the United States and the current state of affairs in other countries that have lax environmental protection policies.

Any private industry influence on the EPA will result in profits being placed above human lives.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-09-2017, 04:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who better to come up with ways to produce materials in the cleanest, practical manner possible.

Imagine a panel of all scientists:

Smoke is bad

Cars smoke

Ban cars

First, they're talking about opening positions up to include industry scientists as well as academic scientists.

Second, who better to understand science than non-scientists? Maybe that lady from Texas who steered the tornado with power of prayer and former governor of Texas and current Secretary of Energy Rick Perry who prayed for rain can lead the EPA?

Since prayer is such an effective cure for disease and trauma, maybe those two could lead the EPA in a prayer to pray the smoke away? Speaking Perry and his rain dance, why hasn't he prayed for clean energy, yet?

[*bfine32*]

(05-09-2017, 04:46 PM)Dill Wrote: Why do we need scientists, anyway?  Humans got by for thousands of years without them.
 

(05-09-2017, 06:13 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: First, they're talking about opening positions up to include industry scientists as well as academic scientists.

Second, who better to understand science than non-scientists?  Maybe that lady from Texas who steered the tornado with power of prayer and former governor of Texas and current Secretary of Energy Rick Perry who prayed for rain can lead the EPA?

Since prayer is such an effective cure for disease and trauma, maybe those two could lead the EPA in a prayer to pray the smoke away?  Speaking Perry and his rain dance, why hasn't he prayed for clean energy, yet?

If you ever wonder what caused the demise of this forum.....look no further that the provided examples.

No one said remove the scientists; I simply disagreed with a post that said remove private industry representation entirely and provided a short example of why all interests should be represented. To achieve the best solution for all parties.

[Benton]

(05-09-2017, 04:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who better to come up with ways to produce materials in the cleanest, practical manner possible.

Imagine a panel of all scientists:

Smoke is bad

Cars smoke

Ban cars

a businesses goal is to make profit. that's all.

any talk about making the world a better place is usally done for either lip service, or by company founders who don't have any authority since a board took over.

producing materials in a clean, practical manner is fine, but tha'ts not the goal of a business. the goal is making money. if you make more money making cheap, dirty, or even dangerous products, then you go with that option.

not that i'm opposed to industry having a voice in epa decisions. they have a stake, too. but i don't think they'll side with making their profit margins shrink.

[*bfine32*]

(05-09-2017, 06:55 PM)Benton Wrote: a businesses goal is to make profit. that's all.

any talk about making the world a better place is usally done for either lip service, or by company founders who don't have any authority since a board took over.

producing materials in a clean, practical manner is fine, but tha'ts not the goal of a business. the goal is making money. if you make more money making cheap, dirty, or even dangerous products, then you go with that option.

not that i'm opposed to industry having a voice in epa decisions. they have a stake, too. but i don't think they'll side with making their profit margins shrink.

I think you may underestimate the stewardship of some businesses. For instance I know an ad-hoc Econ Professor whose daytime job is working for one of the large cell phone service providers. He was assigned the project manager of a research project that looked for ways to reduce texting and driving.

He said it conflicted with his usual practice; as the goal was not to maximize profits.

I can provide numerous other examples of where big industry cut into their profit margin to do the "right thing". I think some of us are just too cynical.  

[Vas Deferens]

(05-09-2017, 07:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think you may underestimate the stewardship of some businesses. For instance I know an ad-hoc Econ Professor whose daytime job is working for one of the large cell phone service providers. He was assigned the project manager of a research project that looked for ways to reduce texting and driving.

He said it conflicted with his usual practice; as the goal was not to maximize profits.

I can provide numerous other examples of where big industry cut into their profit margin to do the "right thing". I think some of us are just too cynical.  

Not to be cynical, but there are numerous reasons your friend would be assigned said project. Public good will would be a major one, but to say it against their profit interests seems false. Very few cell phone plans charge per txt msg currently. In the end, aside from limiting a very dangerous activity which I absolutely abhor and frequently yell at people for while riding my 2 wheel vehicles; they are lessening network loads.

I agree with you that industry needs to be at the table as you described above. But, the way I read the OP was that scientists were being replaced by industry professionals.

The brain drain of institutional knowledge away from the EPA, state dept and countless other depts is scary. I certainly don't believe it will last, but it will take time to repair.