lawnscience question #3

So the New York Times has an article about a new directive signed by Bush, stating that each federal agency create (unless they already have one) an office to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The idea is that each federal agency must identify “the specific market failure” or problem that justifies the rule. This office is supposed to be run by a political appointee.

Now such executive supervisory approaches aren't new. I mean, under Clinton's Executive Order 12,866, the White House Office of Management and Budget got to review whether rules are “necessary” and encouraged consideration of “distributional impacts” and “equity.” One of the differences here is that it expands the supervisory approach to agency guidances as well as rules.

Guidances, though, were not always as subject to extensive political review, even though some are. But many are fairly technical, involving questions of scientific application--transscience questions (involving some normative component), yes, but still on the scale of things less political.

My interest is in how staff scientists should proceed under this regime, knowing that their determination that a rule is necessary must be based on the identification of "market failure." Does this mean becoming versed in economics, as opposed to the physical and health sciences? Does this mean working with economists (and if so, where would the money come from?) A general question, yes, but the sort of thing an administrative law professor wonders about.

epa recommendations on safe levels of percholorate in water

I'm slow on this, but the Integrity of Science blog has a post about a special report in the Oregonian about the efforts of the White House and Pentagon to hinder the EPA's promulgation of recommendations for safe levels of perchlorate for water. The Pentagon's interests in this is that percholorate is a component of rocket fuel, and the Pentagon may wish to be shielded from cleanup costs.

coverage of scientific bias in regulation

The Monterey Herald has an article covering a new systematic analysis by Lenard Lesser et al. of scientific studies of beverages.[*] The researchers of this study found that beverage studies were four to eight times more likely to reach positive conclusions about the health effects of a beverage when that study was industry sponsored. This has implications not only for approvals by the Food and Drug Administration, but also for the Environmental Protection Agency, given what some have observed to be an increasing reliance on industry-sponsored studies.

Also, the Hartford Courant has an editorial: Gagging Science With Politics, decrying some of the procedural changes made in the way the EPA will set pollution standards (moving from staff scientists performing independent reviews of recent research towards scientists "teaming up with their politically appointed bosses to review . . . 'policy-relevant' science").

[*] The Public Library of Science, which publishes the peer-reviewed open-access journal that published Lesser's study, also has a "Perspective," entitled Does Industry Sponsorship Undermine the Integrity of Nutrition Research?, commenting on this study.