- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Should scientist be forbidden from advising the EPA?
Posted on 11/21/14 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 11/21/14 at 5:38 pm
On their own research?
this must be a joke right?
quote:
H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board,
quote:LINK
the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work.
this must be a joke right?
5
Posted on 11/21/14 at 5:41 pm to jeff5891
I don't want insulated scientists with cozy jobs advising the EPA to oppress factories operation at small profit margins.
Scientists are notorious for wanting to regulate everything severely.
Scientists are notorious for wanting to regulate everything severely.
Posted on 11/21/14 at 5:42 pm to jeff5891
It's a peer review type thing. Don't want scientist with self-fulfilling prophesies who just want to keep the grants (money) coming.
This post was edited on 11/21/14 at 5:43 pm
Posted on 11/21/14 at 5:43 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
I don't want insulated scientists with cozy jobs advising the EPA to oppress factories operation at small profit margins.
Scientists are notorious for wanting to regulate everything severely.
Only took one post. Bravo.
Posted on 11/21/14 at 5:47 pm to jeff5891
Just replace the EPA with a hologram of Rachel Carson, we'll save a fortune.
Posted on 11/21/14 at 5:48 pm to ell_13
quote:I'm all for peer review, but they could accomplish that without prohibiting someone from advising on their own research.
It's a peer review type thing.
The real question is who asked for the change? Did the EPA ask for it?
Posted on 11/21/14 at 5:48 pm to jeff5891
You want impartial ppl people on that board. Scientists passing legislation based on their own studies and research is not impartial.
Posted on 11/21/14 at 5:50 pm to HarryBalzack
I don't know the exact details of how this works or what exactly was changed or who asked for it.
I just saw "scientist" and "EPA" and figured that was the thinking.
I just saw "scientist" and "EPA" and figured that was the thinking.
Posted on 11/21/14 at 5:50 pm to HarryBalzack
quote:
The real question is who asked for the change? Did the EPA ask for it?
This post was edited on 11/21/14 at 5:51 pm
Posted on 11/21/14 at 5:56 pm to ell_13
It looks like a pretty stupid rule. If they wanted to counter any conflict of interest concerns, they could have included their requirement to hear from the oil and coal lobbyists and left the rest alone.
None of it matters, anyway. It'll get vetoed and they don't have the votes to override the veto. They knew that when they introduced the bill and the only reason they did it was so they could create a "I know you are but what am I" argument in an attempt to gain some political capital. More gimmicks and the same old shite.
None of it matters, anyway. It'll get vetoed and they don't have the votes to override the veto. They knew that when they introduced the bill and the only reason they did it was so they could create a "I know you are but what am I" argument in an attempt to gain some political capital. More gimmicks and the same old shite.
Posted on 11/21/14 at 5:59 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Just replace the EPA with a hologram of Rachel Carson, we'll save a fortune.
Posted on 11/21/14 at 5:59 pm to jeff5891
And the fact that the reporters don't ask the question shows they are just as shitty as the politicians they cover.
Posted on 11/21/14 at 6:12 pm to jeff5891
Interestingly, scientists with ties to industries being regulated by the EPA aren't being restricted from the panel (they already have representation, and stand to gain more under this measure.) Apparently only points of view that may not be favorable to industry constitute a conflict of interest.
LINK
LINK
This post was edited on 11/21/14 at 6:35 pm
Posted on 11/21/14 at 6:26 pm to Jim Rockford
Link broken
Posted on 11/21/14 at 6:35 pm to jeff5891
Fixed
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News