Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
One of the aspects of the Barack Obama candidacy that raised my hopes and those of so many of my fellow ScienceBloggers, as well as scientists tired of the crass politicization of science under the Bush administration, was the prospect of an Administration in which science and reason were valued and in which cranks were not allowed to impose their agenda on agencies whose policies should be driven by the science. That's one reason why I was very disturbed when I read a post on Election Day suggesting that antivaccinationist crank and activist extraordinaire, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., was being seriously considered for the position of Secretary of the Interior. Yes, in the comments a lot of you told me it was "almost certainly bullshit" or that Interior wouldn't be a bad place for him because he really "cares" about the environment. Never mind that he's a booster of pseudoscience, a hothead prone to comparing political enemies to Hitler and Mussolini, and a lawyer whose science background appears to be primarily torturing science to fit his agenda more than anything else. I started to rest easy for a while, convinced that the report was nothing more than idle speculation or a trial balloon. I really hoped that Obama would not jeopardize his promise to take science seriously and depoliticize it by appointing someone who would trample on science just as much as the worst ideologues in the Bush Administration, the only difference being that he'd stomp on it with his left foot instead of his right foot, if you know what I mean.
Now I'm not resting so easy anymore. There are now several reports that RFK, Jr is being considered for an even worse position, a position where he could do incalculable mischief and at the same time provide credible ammunition to Republicans that the complaints of Democratics that science was politicized under the Bush Administration were hypocritical, given that Kennedy has been politicizing science with gusto and pushing pseudoscience ever since I can remember. I'm talking about numerous reports that RFK, Jr. is being considered to be tapped to as the run the Environmental Protection Agency. He has even been quoted on that repository of all things antivaccine, The Huffington Post, as saying "if asked, I will serve." Meanwhile, antivaccinationists like Generation Rescue founder J. B. Handley are salivating at the prospect, and, betraying liberal claims to be part of the "reality-based" community, the denizens of Democratic Underground are (mostly) orgasmic at the prospect of an RFK, Jr.-led EPA.
Say it ain't so, Barack! Please don't do it. It would be a huge mistake so early in your administration. By appointing such a strident and die-hard advocate of pseudoscience, in one fell swoop, you would seriously damage your credibility as a pro-science President and leave yourself open to charges that you're just as willing to politicize science as the Bush Administration was.
I understand that politics is a dirty business. I also understand that to win frequently idealism has to be checked at the door. I even understand that some measure of political payback is often necessary, or that Obama might think he needs to do something to mollify certain wings of his Party. As Politico put it:
The selection of Kennedy would be a shrewd early move for the new presidential team. Obama advisers said the nomination would please both Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).It also would raise the profile of the EPA, which would help endear Obama to liberals who may be disappointed on other issues important to the Democratic left because of budget restrictions.
Even so, I have a hard time imagining a quicker way for Obama to put the lie to his dedication to science-based policy than to appoint such a vocal and energetic booster of the pseudoscience that mercury in vaccines cause autism into such an influential post. It would be a horrific self-inflicted wound.
Let's consider why.
RFK, Jr. first came to my attention when he published a screed simultaneously on Salon.com and Rolling Stone, entitled Deadly Immunity, which ranted that mercury in the thimerosal preservative that used to be in vaccines that was so dishonest and full of misinformation and distortions that at the time I labeled it the "biggest, steamingest, drippiest turd I've ever seen it [Salon.com] publish." I wasn't alone. Skeptico famously labeled RFK, Jr.'s Deadly Immunity his "completely dishonest thimerosal article" and "lies, damned lies, and quote-mining." Even liberal blogger Majikthise concluded that the actual transcript of the Simpsonwood Conference, described in such conspiratorial detail as a conference in which the CDC decided to cover up "smoking gun" data showing that thimerosal in vaccines causes autism didn't come close to vindicating Kennedy's grandiose claims and that "nothing said at Simpsonwood suggests an attempt to whitewash or cover up anything." That didn't stop RFK, Jr. from spewing one conspiracy theory after another about how the CDC and big pharma supposedly "covered up" a link between mercury in vaccines and autism, all the while misrepresenting the science. For example, here he is on TV around the time of Deadly Immunity:
Note one particularly outrageous example of confusing correlation with causation as RFK, Jr. points out that thimerosal first started to be used in vaccines in the 1930s and "almost immediately" the syndrome of autism was noticed. Of course, autism was first described as a syndrome in 1943 by Leo Kanner; before that there was no condition generally recognized as autism; so this observation is completely spurious, especially since there is copious evidence that behavioral syndromes that were almost certainly autism have been with us for centuries. They were just called something different.
Since that "splash" in 2005, RFK, Jr. has unrelentingly kept up his antivaccination crankery. He has not retreated even one inch, even though numerous lines of evidence, including several very large epidemiological studies, have failed to find a link between mercury and autism or vaccines and autism. For example, he misrepresented a letter to the CDC by Smith-Kline-Beecham as being evidence of some dark conspiracy by the CDC to "discourage" the removal of mercury from vaccines when it was nothing of the sort. Meanwhile, he has been launching despicable attacks against anyone who dares to call him for his antivaccine winguttery, accusing them of "hating mothers," all the while cherry-picking studies, conspiracy-mongering, and ignoring the great mass of evidence that does not support his viewpoint. As Mark Hoofnagle put it:
The conspiracy has landed! And it's a doozy. The CDC, the IOM, the American Association of Pediatrics, and the Pharmaceutical companies are all in cohoots! And don't forget those bureaucrats (said through clenched teeth), you know how they're always on the side of evil. And the Pediatricians! If kids didn't get sick, they'd be out of a job! Clearly they want autism to be pervasive.
Because to RFK, Jr., it's always a conspiracy, and there's no reason to think that he wouldn't continue his paranoid nonsense if he were put in charge of a government agency. Most recently, he gave a speech at the infamous "Green Our Vaccines" antivaccination rally, led by ex-Playmate, game show hostess, and gross-out comedienne Jenny McCarthy turned "mother warrior" against vaccines because she thinks her Google University degree trumps the science that fails to find a link between vaccines and autism:
See Kennedy praising mercury militia crank reporter Dan Olmsted, while claiming that he got "dragged into this issue" because "the truth became undeniable to me." Never mind that three years after his mendacious article, the evidence that there is no correlation between mercury in vaccines and autism has only grown stronger, each study failing to find a correlation between mercury-containing vaccines and autism building upon the next. Indeed, the very fact that autism rates have not declined by now, seven years after the removal thimerosal from nearly every childhood vaccine is about as powerful an epidemiological experiment to test the hypothesis that mercury in vaccines causes autism as there could be. The hypothesis has clearly failed this test, as well as many others. On this issue, RFK, Jr. is, quite frankly, a crank, a crackpot, a nut, a booster of pseudoscience, as he proclaims that he agrees with mothers who think that vaccines are are "destroying the health" of their children and making the "sickest generation of American children in the history of our country." His speech, as expected, is thick with conspiracy theories and in the third part he attacks Dr. Paul Offit, whom he famously called a "biostitute."
I wonder if the Obama transition team has seen this talk. It's an amazingly concentrated piece of pure crankery, and he gave it in June.
So what? You say. The Head of the EPA doesn't have anything to do with vaccines. True enough. But RFK, Jr. has demonstrated himself on this issue not only to be prone to dubious science, but to have become a true believer in one of the most outrageous and dangerous forms of pseudoscience out there: antivaccinationism, or vaccine rejectionism. If you're trying to build an administration ostensibly devoted to using the best science as the basis for public policy, and the EPA is one agency where that is incredibly important, you do not want someone who is so prone to pseudoscience and promoting misinformation running that agency. Moreover, RFK, Jr's tendency to play fast and loose with science goes beyond mercury in vaccines and into the very area where he claims expertise, the environment, where he blames Katrina on global warming, for instance (not even Al Gore does that). Indeed, his assaults on fact and science are legendary, right up to describing the small Cuyahoga River fire (which lasted only 30 minutes and was never caught on film) as "exploding in colossal infernos." Apparently, any "science" is good to him, as long as it appears to support his agenda. Add to that his "not in my backyard" hypocrisy in opposing a proposal to build wind power turbines off of Martha's Vineyard, and it's hard for me to comprehend how Obama could consider him for a post even for a moment.
Indeed, his autism crankery aside, let's not forget also that RFK, Jr. is utterly unqualified to run a major government agency, his environmentalist activities notwithstanding. The EPA is a sprawling bureaucracy charged with converting environmental law into concrete regulations and then enforcing those regulations. It takes a strong managerial skill set to run such an organization. Is there any evidence that RFK, Jr. has the managerial chops to run a bureaucracy as large and complex as the EPA? None that I can see. Certainly he doesn't have the temperament for such a task. He's always seeing dark conspiracies everywhere and is prone to fly off the handle and conflate policy disagreements with evil in the form of Adolf Hitler. (The Hitler Zombie has feasted well and long on RFK, Jr.'s brain!) I wonder if he'll start seeing dark conspiracies against him whenever things don't go his way as Head of the EPA or Secretary of the Interior. I think you know the answer to that one. After all, he's been quoted thusly about reporters who don't report what he thinks they should report, "They should all drink poison Kool Aid and restore integrity to their profession." Indeed, the only good thing about RFK, Jr. in the EPA would be the amusement and schadenfreude that his likely hyperbolic attacks on his former allies the first time policy differences lead them to sue the EPA over an environmental issue would provide. That's the only good thing, though.
Finally, not only would letting RFK, Jr. anywhere near Interior or the EPA allow him to insinuate his pseudoscience into government policy, RFK, Jr. would be a profound embarrassment to the embryonic Obama Administration right from the start. His temperament, his tendency towards conspiracy-mongering and calling his opponents "Nazis" or "traitors," and his credulity towards pseudoscience that allows him to cast himself as the Great Defender Of The Underdog would provide endless ammunition for Republicans to use against the Obama Administration. Worse, in most cases Obama's opponents would be right: RFK, Jr. could be expected to politicize science every bit as much as the Bush Administration was accused of doing, just from a different political viewpoint. If the Bush Administration's politicizing of science was so bad, why should it be any more acceptable from Democrats?
It shouldn't.
I voted for Obama in part because, after eight years of the Bush Administration, I hoped that Obama would be pro-science where the Republicans politicized beyond recognition science that conflicts with their ideology. I still have that hope, but it's being shaken by these increasingly plausible reports that RFK, Jr. is indeed being seriously considered for either a Cabinet post or to lead the EPA. While it's understandable that Democrats might want some push-back after eight years out of the Executive Branch, the way to stop the politicization of science is not to replace Republican ideologues and cranks with Democrat ideologues and cranks. That's exactly what putting the antivaccine crank RFK, Jr. anywhere near a government position would be. All Obama would succeed in doing is to make antivaccinationists very, very happy, antivaccinationists like Ginger Taylor.
I sincerely hope Obama doesn't let RFK, Jr. anywhere near the Cabinet or a federal agency. The foul odor of his pseudoscience would taint his administration from day one and mock his promise to run a "pro-science" administration. Even if Obama did everything else right regarding federal science policy, the stench of RFK, Jr.'s crankery would contaminate everything it comes in contact with. Worse, appointing RFK, Jr. to a position involved in science-based policy making would be a profound betrayal of his promise.
Barack Obama can do much, much better than RFK, Jr.--and should, for the nation's sake. For science's sake.
My RFK, Jr./Department of the Interior/EPA posts:
- Why did someone have to kill my election buzz?
- Say it ain't so, Barack! Say you ain't seriously considering Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to run the EPA!
- Contact the Obama transition team to tell them why Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a truly bad choice for any science-based government post
- My last word on RFK, Jr...for now
OTHER COMMENTARY:
Politics
Medicine & Health
Comments
I saw this mentioned briefly in the press this morning, and was hoping that it was a mistake. I'm just hoping that the science advisors who have been guiding Obama through the election campaign manage to convince him of how great a mistake the appointment of RFK, Jr to any science related post would be. If not then everything will depend on his other appointments, especially the choice of scientific advisor.
Posted by: Paul | November 6, 2008 5:43 AM
I agree with an earlier comment that you should post this on DailyKos if you are registered there. I too hope it's not true. I have spent my entire adult life thus far lamenting the abuses of the Bush administration and I would so hate to see the same abuses repeated from the other (MY) side. I might have to really run away to New Zealand.
Posted by: Katie | November 6, 2008 5:48 AM
Obama can do better than this crank. Political favors be damned, after what we've been through we americans need better than this crank.
Posted by: JKW | November 6, 2008 5:56 AM
So what can I do?
Posted by: Em | November 6, 2008 7:31 AM
Hey, Orac; Timothy Noah over at Slate agrees with you. That's a pretty good outlet, at least.
Posted by: Ranson | November 6, 2008 7:42 AM
I'm not registered there. Why would I want to be? The Kos crowd is a lot like the DU crowd that's cheering on an potential RFK, Jr. appointment. I see little point.
Posted by: Orac | November 6, 2008 7:54 AM
No, DailyKos is much better and smarter crowd than DU (or Huffington for that matter). There are thousands of scientists there, and occasional crank diary gets quickly and firmly shot down by the crowd. Perhaps ask DarkSyde to repost this as a guest-post.
Posted by: Coturnix | November 6, 2008 8:23 AM
How long until the Oprah Obama God Man Messiah hype machine latches on to this and takes up the Anti-vax crusade as a show of support for Obama's possible choice of RFK Jr?
And yes I voted for Obama.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 6, 2008 8:35 AM
This post warms my heart. Only two days after this socialist is elected, here's a critic of an administration that hasn't even started. This is likely only the beginning. Too bad so many Americans were swayed by the ear candy from Obama.
Posted by: Dan | November 6, 2008 8:40 AM
Perhaps a letter signed by ScienceBlog bloggers highlighting RFK's disservice to science might get the attention of the transition team?
Posted by: Sunwarm | November 6, 2008 8:45 AM
this is a concern, and while objections should be raised, we should also realize these are 'early rumors'. we can hope for a different result.
re Dan's comment: if he hadn't displayed his ignorance by throwing out the "socialist" foolishness, he might have had something worth reading.
sound's like he's just sad america wasn't swayed by the fapping candy his party served up as VP.
Posted by: dean | November 6, 2008 9:02 AM
Meet the new boss,
Same as the old boss.
Posted by: TomJoe | November 6, 2008 9:09 AM
What a ridiculous comment. I'll be critical of decisions he makes just the same as any elected official. I voted for him because I fully expect him to make less than the man that was in office the last 8 years (shouldn't be hard to beat that mark) and less than the man he ran against. In addition I expect him to more us forward as a nation instead of stuck in the 1950s.
With the news pouring out from the McCain campaign after the election, if he would have run the country anything like his campaign, we made the right choice.
Now lets hope Obama doesn't make this choice. Even if he does it's but one among many.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 6, 2008 9:14 AM
Alright, I'll give it a try. I like DarkSyde. But I'm skeptical that Daily Kos would be interested. In fact, I bet if he posts it the defenders of RFK, Jr. will come out of the woodwork to attack me.
Posted by: Orac | November 6, 2008 9:15 AM
This should be posted and linked everywhere. Hopefully if we make enough noise it will come to the attention of his science advisers, if they don't already know.
I've had alot of confidence that Obama will surround himself with truly smart advisers. Lets hope he lives up to it...
Posted by: Irrradiatus | November 6, 2008 9:16 AM
I wrote the Obama camp just last night about this issue.
Posted by: Sarabeth | November 6, 2008 9:18 AM
Orac:
I've spent alot of time at Kos, and I must say that on the whole it is a fairly intelligent crowd. However, they, like most of the public, is probably ill-informed when it comes to vaccines and other such pseudoscience. Hell I know of scientists in my OWN lab that have bought into the thimerosol crap.
If you post or link it over there, or just send them your link, it might be very beneficial to spread the information. We can't expect everyone to understand if we don't educate them.
My point is that I think they're a crowd that might listen.
Posted by: Irrradiatus | November 6, 2008 9:23 AM
Note: I've emailed John at AmericaBlog with this info. He's a pretty smart guy and may just call attention to it.
Posted by: Irrradiatus | November 6, 2008 9:28 AM
Orac:
C'mon, you're not afraid of a little controversy, are you? ;-)
Posted by: CyberLizard | November 6, 2008 9:45 AM
[snigger.wav]
You were warned: this socialist bastard is just another politician, and the "change" he promised was all pure humbug. You chose to ignore the warning. Now you get to live with the consequences.
Politics and science are natural enemies. Politicians believe that perception can change reality. Science believes that reality is always the same regardless of perception. The two worldviews are fundamentally incompatible. Science and scientists don't gain anything from associating with politicians, and never have -- except for the discrediting of their science in the eyes of almost everyone who disagrees with them politically. Evolution, vaccines, global climate change, conservation, pharmaceuticals, stem-cell research, petro-geology, power generation, species and habitat management -- the list goes on and on. When science gets politicized, scientists and the public both lose.
Posted by: wolfwalker | November 6, 2008 10:07 AM
May I suggest a brilliant counter-nomination?
President-elect Obama has stated that he wants prominent Republicans in his administration. Well, how about a Republican who has the perfect resume for running the EPA: Christine Todd Whitman, who was the head of the EPA before being driven out for doing the job too well?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | November 6, 2008 10:11 AM
Oh ignoramus. Obama would fit comfortably into any of Europe's big conservative parties (except in Ireland, Poland, Italy and presumably Lithuania, and that only because he's not Catholic enough). I know what a Socialist/Social Democratic party in power really does, and Obama's program is simply not the same.
It goes without saying that Mc90%Same would be an off-the-map reactionary by European standards, or AFAIK Canadian, Australian, NZ, or Japanese ones.
Posted by: David Marjanović | November 6, 2008 10:15 AM
Incidentally, Kerry, both Clintons, and AFAIK Gore would be considered conservative over here, too. Down to details like "let's have gay marriage, except for the word 'marriage'".
Posted by: David Marjanović | November 6, 2008 10:18 AM
I heard this bit of news on the radio while on the way home from work yesterday and almost drove off the road. I'll keep an eye here for news on the best way to voice an opinion against this appointment.
Posted by: Enkidu | November 6, 2008 10:21 AM
I'm agreeing with David here - certainly in the UK, the Democrats would basically be our Conservative party, and the Republicans would be a right-wing-insane-fringe party that people would cross the road to avoid.
Posted by: DrFrank | November 6, 2008 10:28 AM
May I suggest the following approach.
If somebody who reads this blog and who knows Representative Bill Foster from Illinois could contact the congressman and urge him to meet with his collegue, Representative Rahm Emmanuel, also from Illinois on this matter, this might be a way of putting the kibosh on this proposed appointment. Representative Emmanual is apparently slated to become President Elect Obamas' chief of staff and it is likely that he would be in a position to counsel otherwise.
Posted by: SLC | November 6, 2008 10:30 AM
DrFrank
But he's not over here is he? He's an American politician, playing to an American electorate and in that background it's safe to say that he's roughly left of centre, rather than to the right of it as he would be if he was campaigning over here. Since he is the president-elect of the US and it's US politics we're discussing though, isn't it a bit silly to use European definitions of left and right to decide where he is? It's not as though those definitions were carved in stone anyway, they're convenient (or in this case not-so-convenient) political shorthand.
You can however certainly take issue with the term socialist used to describe Barack Obama. Unlike "right" or "left" wing this is not a term relative to the political tides, it is a much more specific term, refering to a specific ideology and is associated with a specific programme which Barack Obama does not appear to share.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | November 6, 2008 10:58 AM
Hey Lilly :)
I wasn't really suggesting that Americans should use our definitions of political left/right, just mainly pointing out how crazy the Republicans would be perceived over here ;) Reminding my Democrat Merkin friends of this fact tends to cheer them up.
Posted by: DrFrank | November 6, 2008 11:19 AM
Don't make too many assumptions about Daily Kos. It is a very diverse readership with a significant fact-based population.
Here are two pro RFK Jr EPA diaries:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/5/142039/683
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/5/15421/1148/193/654749
You'll notice that there is some agreement, but also strong, fact-based disagreement. Neither diary was highly recommended meaning that these opinions don't get huge traction on the site yet.
Posted by: bsci | November 6, 2008 11:37 AM
Only two days after the election, and the bloom is off the rose. Told you so.
Posted by: McCaniac | November 6, 2008 11:38 AM
Umm...
DailyKos is like listening to Rush Limbaugh too long.
If you want to do something write in letters to the major papers (WaPo, NYT, and even WSJ). If the press gets wind of this before Obama makes his decision there's opportunity to reverse it. Thinking that the Daily Kos (even if you think they aren't political hacks) has influence over Obama is silly. Bad major press will have an influence.
Someone mentioned putting a Republican in the role. I think that politically that is just a non-starter. You are going to have to placate the far left of the party with this position. While having a very competent moderate over either the DOE or EPA would be practically wise it would also be politically dumb. I could handle an ideologue there if they were simultaneously competent, a good manager, and listened to the science rather than trying to dictate to the science.
I understand Obama was a student of Reagan and Clinton. One hopes he was of Bush as well if only to learn what not to do. And if he appoints Kennedy he is making exactly the same kinds of mistakes Bush did. And it will have the same consequences.
Posted by: Clark | November 6, 2008 11:52 AM
Don't make too many assumptions about Daily Kos. It is a very diverse readership with a significant fact-based population.i>
LOL, you've got to be kidding?
Posted by: Joel | November 6, 2008 12:22 PM
I find it funny and a bit telling that some conservatives see it has bad to be criticizing the person one voted for. Seriously, adults can manage to consider a person the best available for the job and also disagree with some of their decisions or rumored decisions.
Posted by: Natalie | November 6, 2008 12:24 PM
I agree with the general sentiment that you have to get this news out to someone, be it kos or a major newspaper or ANYTHING. There's too much at stake for us to sit idly by.
Posted by: Josh | November 6, 2008 12:26 PM
The reason that Whitman was run out of the Bush Administration was precisely that she wouldn't put up with having Dick Cheney dictating the contents of EPA reports that her staff produced.
In other words, this is a woman who actually (how European!) resigned a high-level post in protest rather than allow prostitution of science on her watch.
Does anyone have a problem with that?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | November 6, 2008 12:37 PM
It may be very difficult for Obama to resist putting RFK, Jr. on his cabinet in some position. After all, Obama got a serious "boost" when he needed it from the Kennedy clan. And apart from Edward (Senator for Mass.) and Patrick (Representative for Rhode Island), who's left in the family to reward? RFK, Jr. is the only one without a government job.
That said, I would hope that Obama might place RFK, Jr. in a positions where his documented crankery would be less of a problem - transportation, perhaps, or labor or housing and urban development. We'll just have to hope for the best and see how it all shakes out in the end.
Prometheus
Posted by: Prometheus | November 6, 2008 12:39 PM
Well, you obviously haven't been paying attention to any of our political views. I've never seen any of my blogging friends gush over Obama. He was a compromise from the start. I was planning on criticizing him long before I even entered the voting booth. He's not perfect, and by criticizing him I hope to counteract the side effect of picking the lesser of two evils.
What mostly swayed me to vote for Obama was what McCain and Palin were saying. If they got in office, they'd be getting far worse from me with more consistency.
Oh, and of course, McCain apparently expanded "socialism" to mean the government doing anything with taxes.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 6, 2008 12:40 PM
I've actually already linked it a couple of times over at DailyKos already (I have been kind of obsessed with this election despite not being American and living in Britain) in response to some RFK suggestions.
It might change some minds, or at least bring some Kossacks over here to argue their point.
Posted by: Despard | November 6, 2008 12:57 PM
[quote]That said, I would hope that Obama might place RFK, Jr. in a positions where his documented crankery would be less of a problem - transportation, perhaps, or labor or housing and urban development. We'll just have to hope for the best and see how it all shakes out in the end[/quote]
Interior?
Posted by: rj5 | November 6, 2008 1:14 PM
There is a diary on this at Daily Kos. There are some informed commenters:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/5/15421/1148
Posted by: Dave Ruddell | November 6, 2008 1:48 PM
Isn't pseudoscience to some extent compartmentalized in some people? In fact, I know it is. The equivalent of vaccine crankery is seen all the time in race related issues. I can think of numerous physicists, chemists, etc. who are fine in their own area but get the biology (=science) of race, and also, evolutionary biology, totally wrong.
The EPA does not regulate vaccines. Perhaps RFKJR will be outstanding in this post.
Posted by: Anon ... not a member of the club? | November 6, 2008 2:53 PM
Remember that RFK jr was arrested and convicted for heroin possession. How many senators will vote to confirm a former heroin addict?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE7DF1039F934A25750C0A962948260
Posted by: Joseph O'Sullivan | November 6, 2008 3:00 PM
Unfortunately, RFK, Jr.'s pseudoscience is not well compartmentalized, and he's a NIMBY hypocrite as well. Moreover, impressions count. Barack Obama claims to be pro-science. To appoint someone with such a glaring hole in his critical thinking and scientific reasoning abilities sends a very bad message even if you were right and RFK, Jr. can completely compartmentalize. Remember, he's not just wrong, he is a crusader for wrong when it comes to vaccines.
Finally, yes, the EPA does not regulate vaccines, but it does regulate mercury in the environment. RFK, Jr. passionately believes that mercury causes autism and buys into the dubious science claiming that mercury from power plant emissions causes autism. Now, there are good health reasons to regulate such emissions, but arguing for them on the bogus claim that they cause autism is not the way to convince people that it is worth the expense and trouble.
Posted by: Orac | November 6, 2008 3:02 PM
Quick, where can I buy my "Don't blame me! I voted for McCain" bumper sticker? The campaign is over, I'm not bitter, really.
This is simple payback to the Kennedys for backing BO over HRC in the DNC primary. Caroline is headed to the UN as US Ambassador too.
Paybacks are a bitch.
Posted by: Mekei | November 6, 2008 3:26 PM
It couldn't get much worse than making Zionist extremist Rahm Emanuel Chief of Staff.
There will be no peace in Palestine while Emanuel is in the White House.
Posted by: ]Thomas Mc | November 6, 2008 3:41 PM
Everything is a conspiracy to him. Including his latest conspiracy not coming true, that was done just to disprove its existence.
Posted by: Evinfuilt | November 6, 2008 4:20 PM
This needs to be pushed. She did an excellent job, and refused to rewrite reports to fall in line with the Republican Party.
Though, if he wants, there are I believe 3 scientists (non-medical) in Congress, and he could actually persuade one of them. A physicist in charge of the EPA would be a whole lot better than a conspiracy theorist.
Posted by: Evinfuilt | November 6, 2008 4:34 PM
The Kennedy name is powerful and having an activist as head of EPA is more than fine, because the head position is all showbiz and Cspan. The deeper and more important question is, are there any scientists left at EPA or were they purged during the Dark Ages, when the EPA libraries were closed and the GOP's Liberty University hit squad for God ran rampant over every department? It might be that only creation scientists and the Discovery Institute welfare queens are working over there.
Posted by: Phil Dirte' | November 6, 2008 4:36 PM
William Ruckelshaus is a Republican who also did an excellent job as EPA head (though I think he's a bit busy trying to improve the health of Puget Sound at the present). But I do have an idea I'd like to float. How about Steve Novick? He's a Dem, ran in the primary along with Jeff Merkley for Gordon Smith's senate seat. Merkley just won that seat. Novick was a litigator at DOJ on Love Canal, so I would think he has a decent appreciation for science and hot to use good science to make policy. It's an idea; in any case, I think he would be a far better candidate than Kennedy.
Posted by: Tlazolteotl | November 6, 2008 5:45 PM
You can send suggestions on this web page:
http://www.change.gov/page/s/ofthepeople
Might be worthwhile?
Posted by: Elaine | November 6, 2008 6:40 PM
Siding with D.C. for suggesting Christine Whitman, reach across the aisle and put someone who has been in the spot already. (Should she decide to accept.)
Someone somewhere mentioned that this RFKjr appointment would placate the kennedys/clintons, or help acknowledge their endorsements. While it may, it would be some of the same good ole boy bovine excrement, versus change.
We do not need woo in the EPA, and RFKjr has been demonstrated to be on the woo wagon.
Posted by: Patrick | November 6, 2008 6:50 PM
I am going to be really upset if RFK jr gets the post. In the event he does, I think we should start a public campaign to shame him into repudiating the vaccine autism link.
Posted by: Phil | November 6, 2008 7:06 PM
I just sent the O-man a letter at www.Change.gov, where he's put up a lot of position papers and other material.
Posted by: David Harmon | November 6, 2008 7:32 PM
Relax, ORAC. They'll reward RFK Jr. with some smaller sub-agency instead. Maybe FDA?
Posted by: Tom T. | November 6, 2008 7:34 PM
I'm apposed to dynasties in general. RFK, Hillary, GWB, etc. seem to be horrible candidates for anything.
Posted by: zpmorgan | November 6, 2008 7:55 PM
A few weeks ago I said that many of you who voted for Obama hoping for less pseudoscience in government would soon be eating your hat... Clinton started the NCCAM and now this... I am willing to provide the hat.
Posted by: MBA | November 6, 2008 8:04 PM
That's not funny.
Posted by: Orac | November 6, 2008 8:10 PM
It may not matter terribly who's EPA administrator anyway. The Bush administration essentially put the OMB in charge of environmental rulemaking, which I'll bet doesn't change with a new administration. The EPA regions are pretty independent when it comes to enforcement priorities. The labs are also pretty independent, with their own congressional sponsors. Headquarters churns a lot of stuff out, but the real action is in the regions and labs. Watch for who fills those leadership positions.
I'll believe we're serious about environmental protection the day it's made a cabinent position. . . .
Posted by: JLowe | November 6, 2008 8:20 PM
Aside from anything else, Kennedy is a trial lawyer who has made his money off of environmental lawsuits. This alone should be enough to bar him from serving as chief of the EPA.
Posted by: DLC | November 6, 2008 8:36 PM
I'm a chemist who does contract work for the EPA in Washington, and I have meetings there occasionally. There's a group of about 12 chemists that I deal with mainly.
I think that Christine Todd-Whitman would be an excellent choice to run the EPA again. Someone who's a good manager, has goals and would not be a lap dog. Unlike the current Administrator Johnson, who's a lap dog for the Bush White House.
What the EPA does not need is a person who's too far out there, who is not likely to listen to the technical staff at the EPA, and who may be swayed more by opinion than by facts.
That being said, the EPA is certainly an unusual place, from my experiences. One of the things that really slows down the technical/regulatory work in Washington is the turf battles between different branches within the EPA. One groups insists they should be in charge of a certain regulatory program, while another group will protest this, go off and duplicate work that the first group has done, then neither group coordinates their work with each other. An incredible amount of time (and money) is wasted over these turf battles, and there's no upper management that seems willing to step in and do something about it. Perhaps this is just the way that Federal agencies operate. Some of these battles have dragged on for years.
And to warm your hearts even further - the EPA chemist who I deal with the most believes in homeopathy. He is actually very knowledgable about the regulatory work that he's in charge of, and certainly has listened to my technical arguments when we discuss aspects of my work. But he's told me that he's taken homeopathic remedies, and he appeared to have a positive opinion of them.
(When I heard him tell me this, I immediately thought: if only ORAC were listening to this conversation)
Posted by: Renee | November 6, 2008 8:40 PM
not only is RFK Jr. an environmental hypocrite (do as I say, not as I do), he also has a LOT of personal baggage (busted for heroin, divorced his 1st wife 3 weeks before marrying 2nd wife, who was already 6 mos. pregnant!)& more issues that will come back to haunt both Kennedy and Obama.
We've had enough drug and sex scandals in D.C. We want a gov't we can trust. Obama needs to select cabinet officials with integrity, RFK JR. is not that man.
Posted by: Devin | November 6, 2008 8:42 PM
Most important question you leave unanswered Orac:
What can we do? Write a letter? Okay. Give me the address. Honestly, just point me in the right direction here.
Posted by: The Chemist | November 6, 2008 10:31 PM
Is it possible they're just floating the name to see how it plays with their various constituencies? (I learned that one from The Wire.) Does RFK Jr. actually carry any weight among any politically connected center-left groups? I'm honestly asking; I don't know the answer.
Posted by: lylebot | November 6, 2008 10:52 PM
I myself have never been a fan of the Kennedy Clan and I certainly have never understood the "camelot" BS people say all the time. Between the vaccines and the wind power flip flop, RFK jr, not too bright. We need someone educated & willing to listen, not some lapdog or extremist, of either party. that being said, in regards to the stupid "socialist" comments. What type of American would I be if I did not state my opinions on what my chosen candidate was doing?? You certainly would not have agreed with everything McCain did and if you did you would be full of it.
Posted by: MissFifi | November 6, 2008 10:56 PM
I think you are missing the point in that he is not a scientist, nor is he being asked to be a scientist. He is a politician being asked to fill a political position to which, I must say, he is very well suited. Science can prove whatever it wants, it all depends who is funding the experiment. What is your agenda? In my book, those who can't see there is a relationship between vaccines and autism are either blind or have vested interest in pharmaceuticals.
Posted by: peter green | November 6, 2008 11:15 PM
Congratulations! We have the pharma shill gambit combined with a credulous swallowing of the antivaccinationist myth that vaccines cause autism.
Posted by: Orac | November 6, 2008 11:22 PM
And all it takes is perfectly bribing the hundreds to thousands of people involved in each one, as well as silencing all the university and international results that don't jive with the rich people.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 6, 2008 11:41 PM
Not only do I hope that RFK gets EPA, but I'm hoping David Graham gets FDA and that we get universal health care for all, so that these greedy asshole doctors have to treat poor people, for once.
Go Obama!
Post