Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Earth Government United States Science

Scientist Removed From EPA Panel Due To Industry Opposition 105

Beeftopia writes "The relationship between regulator and regulated is once again called into question as industry pressure leads to a scientist's removal from an EPA regulatory panel. From the article: '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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientist Removed From EPA Panel Due To Industry Opposition

Comments Filter:
  • Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mitreya ( 579078 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `ayertim'> on Wednesday February 13, 2013 @04:06PM (#42887195)

    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.

    So... what's the pre-flip good side of the industry's sway?

    Can't they just say -- industry has full control and can both nominate people they like and cut out people they do not like.

  • by AdamStarks ( 2634757 ) on Wednesday February 13, 2013 @04:12PM (#42887271)

    The summary makes it seem like this just happened, but she was actually removed back in 2007. Why is this coming up now, 6 years later?

  • by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Wednesday February 13, 2013 @06:07PM (#42888671)

    and guess what?

    The process worked despite her removal. It wasn't actually necessary for her to abrogate the pretense of impartiality expected of a scientist working on behalf of the public. It isn't actually necessary for public institutions to be populated with rabid activists for the public to be protected.

    It is better that the government protect its credibility by spacing abusive and reckless fools like her. Unfortunately that's not what happened. She still works for the US government. She just got pulled from an EPA panel.

They are called computers simply because computation is the only significant job that has so far been given to them.