- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: Scott Pruitt Unveils Controversial Limits to Scientific Research
Posted on 4/25/18 at 8:25 am to BamaAtl
Posted on 4/25/18 at 8:25 am to BamaAtl
Fine then let the private sector do the research and keep it all private.
If public money is involved, the public has a right to see what they bought.
The ones paying the bill are the boss.
If public money is involved, the public has a right to see what they bought.
The ones paying the bill are the boss.
1
Posted on 4/25/18 at 8:32 am to IslandBuckeye
In a perfect world both economic data and enviornmental data should be publically available, but that’s simply not always pratical.
It’s not at all difficult to imagine datasets generated by private firms that the EPA would be interested in. Top of my head, I could see them having a strong interest in estimating the volume of accessible underground freshwater aquifers. There are already hundreds of companies across the US making these estimations in various areas. It would be significantly cheaper for the gov to purchase that data from those firms rather than setting up an entirely new division to go around the country and make these esimations themselves.
The EPA’s scope involves way more than simply ‘climate data’.
It’s not at all difficult to imagine datasets generated by private firms that the EPA would be interested in. Top of my head, I could see them having a strong interest in estimating the volume of accessible underground freshwater aquifers. There are already hundreds of companies across the US making these estimations in various areas. It would be significantly cheaper for the gov to purchase that data from those firms rather than setting up an entirely new division to go around the country and make these esimations themselves.
The EPA’s scope involves way more than simply ‘climate data’.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 8:34 am to TrueTiger
quote:
If public money is involved, the public has a right to see what they bought.
The public doesn't have a right to see individuals' medical records. You don't have a right to know the individual lead levels of citizens in Flint, or the specific family cancer histories of coal mining families in West Virginia, etc.
But having those data is essential for much of the environmental research the EPA is supposed to base its guidelines and regulations on. It's one thing to provide your de-identified data to a reviewer or sponsor committee to allow for independent verification of your results, but that's not what this is.
It's a deliberate attempt to invalidate studies that corporations don't like, because they usually show that said corporation is harming a community.
So of course this board loves it.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 8:57 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
Surely nobody would actually be against this, right? I mean if the science is settled, the public should know about it, right?
The studies he is trying to withhold are those that involve patient studies that have personal patient information redacted. The science is secure, but the underlying patient info private. This is what he is wanting to deny.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 8:58 am to BamaAtl
quote:
The public doesn't have a right to see individuals' medical records. You don't have a right to know the individual lead levels of citizens in Flint, or the specific family cancer histories of coal mining families in West Virginia, etc.
If the study is based on de-identified data then making the data public isn't an issue.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:00 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
CNN headline, no link.
So... like your entire post?
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:02 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
If the study is based on de-identified data then making the data public isn't an issue.
He isn't differentiating - he's saying ALL data, even raw data, must be made public.
Now you see the problem.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:03 am to funnystuff
Also of interest would be methods used with the data, the "fudge factor". Some temp data is adjusted. This we need to know. If studies in medicine were not transparent, we would flip out and rightfully so.
Climate data affects us all as well as policies are derived from it.
Climate data affects us all as well as policies are derived from it.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:05 am to BamaAtl
Conflating personal health data and climate data demonstrates either ignorance or obfuscation.
In your case, why not both?
In your case, why not both?
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:05 am to skrayper
I'm not giving a link to those garbage resources, sorry. I suggest you google the thread title, it's not that hard if you're actually interested in this discussion.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:08 am to BamaAtl
quote:
The public doesn't have a right to see individuals' medical records. You don't have a right to know the individual lead levels of citizens in Flint, or the specific family cancer histories of coal mining families in West Virginia, etc.
But having those data is essential for much of the environmental research the EPA is supposed to base its guidelines and regulations on. It's one thing to provide your de-identified data to a reviewer or sponsor committee to allow for independent verification of your results, but that's not what this is.
It's a deliberate attempt to invalidate studies that corporations don't like, because they usually show that said corporation is harming a community.
So of course this board loves it.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:08 am to BamaAtl
quote:
He isn't differentiating - he's saying ALL data, even raw data, must be made public.
Now you see the problem.
I don't believe you obviously, that would violate hipaa and would immediately be sued into oblivion making it pointless.
These complaints reek of progressive histrionics aimed at stonewalling a policy that would undermine the influence of the shitty science they rely on to enact their terrible policies.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:12 am to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
I'm conflicted on this one.
Not informed abut this topic at all, but in general, governmental policy should not be based on 'scientific data' that belongs to some commercial interest and not reviewable by the public.
That would appear to be an invitation to corruption.
If it is 'scientific' then publish it and make whatever public policy it supports - or else let the commercial interest keep it for their own financial advantage thru the marketplace.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:13 am to BamaAtl
quote:
It's a deliberate attempt to invalidate studies that corporations don't like, because they usually show that said corporation is harming a community.
if that were the case wouldn't that be public knowledge with this data now that the corporations were hurting somebody?
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:13 am to Turbeauxdog
Well, surprisingly, this conversation has made me think twice about this. Are there not ways to make the raw data public and withhold the names/ssn/sensitive data? Seems pretty simple to me.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:15 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
Well, surprisingly, this conversation has made me think twice about this. Are there not ways to make the raw data public and withhold the names/ssn/sensitive data? Seems pretty simple to me.
Of course, take the names off. Done.
As usual, bamaatl is absolutely full of it.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:17 am to IslandBuckeye
quote:
Conflating personal health data and climate data demonstrates either ignorance or obfuscation.
Is it your belief that the Environmental Protection Agency only deals with climate data?
Or that Pruitt is trying to institute this rule for just climate data?
Because you'd be flat wrong on both counts.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:19 am to funnystuff
quote:
Unfortunately it would rule out a number of valid studies today.
I’m a bit of an idealist here, believing that data should be open source whenever possible, but the unfortunate truth is that it’s simply not the case.
Example: My employer currently pays a butt-load of money for me to have access to global macroeconomic data and forecasts created by Oxford Economics. When I use those for research, I of course am obliged to identify Oxford as the source of the data, but I am not allowed to make the data publicly available. Big data is a business and Oxford Economics devotes a lot of their resources to remaining competitive in this space. That means restricting their data to only those who pay for it.
Which in my view will be the biggest downside of this limit. It will mean the removal of private business from the research process in favor of the vast majority of the data being government generated.
People make a ton of mistakes all the time. There's no way policy should be made using data that can't be re-analyzed. It's a non-starter as far as I'm concerned.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:19 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
I don't believe you obviously, that would violate hipaa and would immediately be sued into oblivion making it pointless.
You can get HIPAA waivers from your IRB - and obviously informed consent for prospective studies etc. release some otherwise confidential information to the researcher.
That is usually with the caveat that said data will be safeguarded in specific and traceable ways, and never be made public.
Which is the point - if Pruitt chooses to disallow any study that can't make ALL of its data public, then he's disallowing the vast majority of human subjects research.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:20 am to 3nOut
quote:
if that were the case wouldn't that be public knowledge with this data now that the corporations were hurting somebody?
Yeah, it's almost as if nobody's ever done any research on public health issues created by corporations in individual communities, and that research has never led to penalties for said companies from the EPA.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News