[ RadSafe ] Discussion of the Data Quality Act

[Muckerheide, James]

Thank you Marshall, and Friends,

Today's Globe article is at:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/08/28/interrogations/?pa
ge=full 
or:
http://tinyurl.com/9vfnc 

This is from an author writing a book to misrepresent the fact that so-called
"science" results by many gov't agencies, and their well-rewarded
"researchers," are often manipulated results to support the bureaucratic
agenda of the agencies. This has been documented by many gov't agency
scientists (including EPA) that their work is misrepresented and misused by
agency mangers and executives, and was the basis of the legislation to
provide opportunities for others to examine the often secret basis on which
agency decisions are claimed to be based.  There is little fear among
credible scientists that there data will "get out."  Any fear is as
represented in this biased article would be by those who play the agency game
of producing and promulgating false data and misrepresenting results.

Regards, Jim 
=============


> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of J. Marshall Reber
> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 11:07 AM
> To: rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Discussion of the Data Quality Act
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/