In my latest Science Progress column, I describe the utter meltdown at the Environmental Protection Agency, which involves not only mistreatment of agency scientists but the blatant failure to follow the law. Things probably haven't been this bad at the agency since the days of Ann Gorsuch Burford, if anyone remembers her. And that's saying something.
You can read the piece here.
More like this
The Michigan House of Representatives passed a bill that allows adoption agencies to refuse to place children in any situation that violates their "written religious or moral convictions or
“If you are caught on a golf course during a storm and are afraid of lightning, hold up a 1-iron. Not even God can hit a 1-iron.” -Lee Trevino
On Friday, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a "report card" on media practices and scientific speech in federal agencies. According to UCS,
President Bush signed a whole heap of bad yesterday. Amendments to a Clinton-era executive order will substantially increase the influence of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) over federal agencies such as NASA, the EPA, and the FDA.
http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=90862
Chris, I thought you might be interested in this story that aired on Channel 9 here in Denver last night. It's about Dr. William Gray at CSU.
Chris,
another type of abuse, not only at EPA but across many of these agencies, is that of scientific authority. Administrators, which themselves have little or no scientific experience, are the ones who either make the "scientific call' or decide who does. Thus, the level of scientific information needed in order to make a decision is constantly being increased. Many a good scientists have left EPA, F&WS, NASA, etc. and aren't replaced, or a much junior scientist replaces them.
Would be interesting to see the number of peer reviewed pubs coming out of these agencies during the last decade.
While I think Gerardo has a point, Administrator Johnson has the scientific experience (and the civil service experience) where you'd think he'd act differently than he has. What are particular events in his biography that could explain the apparent contradiction?