[ RadSafe ] Discussion of the Data Quality Act

[J. Marshall Reber]

Shortly after WWII an MIT mathematician, Norbert Wiener, warned that the 
massive support of science that the war necessitated could have 
disastrous long term consequences in the politicalization of scientific 
institutions.  Today the Boston Globe has a biased article concerning 
the "War on Science" engendered by the five-year-old Data Quality Act.  
The article primarily concerns itself with the regulations of the 
Environmental Protection Agency.  Because the monetary consequences of 
government regulation can be so immense the superficial tendency is to 
believe that institutional groups and peer mechanisms of review will 
assure more rational regulations.  On the other hand we see that the 
traditional concepts of legal entities with limited liability make 
certain kinds of institutional misbehavior almost impossible to prevent 
or even to prosecute when perpetrated by those controlling the 
institution.  Because science and government institutions are so tightly 
coupled it becomes ever more difficult to assure objectivity of their 
inter-relationships.

Increasingly the tendency is to believe that the traditional judicial 
system is the solution to disagreement.  Unfortunately the traditional 
court system is not designed to resolve scientific controversy.  As in 
the system of U.S. patent law, the courts primarily rely upon the use 
compurgators, or paid advocates (usually called scientific experts), to 
argue scientific matters before scientific illiterates, often judges and 
juries.

A full discussion of these matters in the scientific, governmental, and 
legal communities would seem to be the best prophylactic to "the human 
misuse of human beings" that could ensue as society becomes more complex.

J. Marshall Reber
165 Berkeley St.
Methuen MA 01844

Tel/Fax: 978-683-6540
Alternate Email: reber at alum.mit.edu