General Discussion

IDemo

(16,926 posts) Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:39 AM Feb 2013

Ouster of Scientist from EPA Panel Shows Industry Clout

Deborah Rice served as chair of an EPA panel assessing the safety levels of flame retardants in 2007, but her removal from that panel led some to believe that a powerful industry lobbying group had influenced the EPA and unfairly targeted the scientist.

In 2007, when Deborah Rice was appointed chair of an Environmental Protection Agency panel assessing the safety levels of flame retardants, she arrived as a respected Maine toxicologist with no ties to industry.

Yet the EPA removed Rice from the panel after an intense push by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry lobbying group that accused her of bias. Her supposed conflict of interest? She had publicly raised questions about the safety of a flame retardant under EPA review.

Rice's travails through the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, program reveal the flip side of industry's sway. Not only does the ACC back many scientists named to IRIS panels, it also has the power to help remove ones it doesn't favor.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/02/ouster-of-scientist-from-epa-panel-shows-industry-clout.html

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Ouster of Scientist from EPA Panel Shows Industry Clout (Original Post) IDemo Feb 2013 OP

Do we want EPA to be unbiased or not? Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #1

We would want an EPA biased toward safeguarding public safety and environmental well-being IDemo Feb 2013 #2

The industries being examined are very much a part of the panels' work. Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #3

A public servant with a public opinion? IDemo Feb 2013 #4

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

1. Do we want EPA to be unbiased or not?

Reply to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:46 AM

Feb 2013

If Rice has an opinion that she is stated publicly, then she is not unbiased.

We wouldn't want somone on the panel who had publicly declared that flame retardants posed no issues.

IDemo

(16,926 posts)

2. We would want an EPA biased toward safeguarding public safety and environmental well-being

Reply to Buzz Clik (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:18 AM

Feb 2013

But having or expressing an opinion doesn't necessarily make one biased. It's when that opinion exists without regard to legitimate alternatives or specifically contrary to those alternatives that it fits the definition.

What we should expect from anyone holding a position on a panel which serves to examine scientific issues is the willingness and ability to do so with open eyes, not with prejudice.

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

3. The industries being examined are very much a part of the panels' work.

Reply to IDemo (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:44 AM

Feb 2013

They work with the panel in getting all the information they need/request, make presentations, etc.

If the industries feel that they are not getting a fair evaluation from EPA, the process breaks down. Rice never should have made her opinion public. Having an opinion is fine; have a public opinion is not.

IDemo

(16,926 posts)

4. A public servant with a public opinion?

Reply to IDemo (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 12:24 PM

Feb 2013

Unless she were part of an intelligence committee, I see no reason for her to have withheld comments on the safety of the substance in question. She was highly qualified on the subject, as I would hope anyone in such a position would be. For the ACC to call her 'biased' because they felt the facts would cost them money isn't surprising. This wouldn't be any different than the nuke industry crying foul if the hazards of a reactor design were spoken of by a Department of Energy committee member.

Reply to this discussion