Re: "Scientific misconduct" in gov't data

[carol marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu>]

At 05:35 PM 12/17/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Group,
>
>FYI from Science, Dec 17, the "ScienceScope" section: Some interests
>try to pursue government dishonesty. When will the 'nuclear industry'
>learn? 
>
>Perhaps they would even have/acquire the competence to assess the data
>if they get it? When will the "nuclear industry" do so? 
>
>Would they also pursue "scientific misconduct" if the scientists
>"cooked" the data to meet EPA demands, like radiation health effects
>data/scientists? (recall Otto Raabe's email on the data falsified by
>Mays and Lloyd for BEIR IV).
>
>Consider allegations on a few dozen of the worst offenders. Re our
>challenge on Geoffrey Howe's appointment to the BEIR VII Committee, he
>has been removed, along with Chris Whipple. Identification of
>falsified data is welcome (privately as well as on the lsit).
> 
>Regards, Jim
>============
>
>Data Grab
>
>Hoping to pry open the Clinton Administration's narrow interpretation
>of a new law that gives the public access to raw research data, the
>U.S. Chamber of Commerce last week set the stage for a legal challenge
>by requesting data used to support several Environmental Protection
>Agency (EPA) regulations and policies.
>
>Universities breathed a sigh of relief earlier this fall when the
>White House Office of Management and Budget limited the public's reach
>to published results used in crafting a rule or unpublished data cited
>in a regulation, and said only data collected under grants made after
>6 November were open to scrutiny (Science, 8 October, p. 209). But
>such restrictions are "improper," according to chamber vice president
>William Kovacs. His group has asked for raw data from several older
>studies used by EPA, including a 1993 Harvard University air pollution
>analysis that prompted the campaign to force researchers to share
>their data. Kovacs expects EPA to deny the requests within a couple of
>months. If so, the chamber will sue the government.
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>


Dear Jim:

The Nuclear Medicine and Nuclear Pharmacy community have discovered many
cases of fraud at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission  regarding the "Medical"
Program.  Despite repeated demonstrations of such fraud, the management will
do nothing, the Office of General Counsel will do nothing (they are part of
the problem), the Inspector-General does nothing or whitewashes the affair,
and the Commissioners refuse to admit fraud or to do anything about it. The
Office of Govt. Ethics has no jurisdiction, but once demanded an I-G
investigation at NRC of its "Medical" Program that unfortunately became a
disgusting whitewash.

Where do you go for help?  The FBI?  The President (who himself is guilty of
apparent nuclear fraud in forbidding the Secretary of Interior from
transferring the Ward Valley land for a LLRW site)?   The Congress, many of
whose members have been bought by antinukes?  The Courts?  The media (lots
of luck!)?  The public (lots of luck squared!)?  If you can even figure out
a source of help, how much time and money will it take to get action?  The
National Academy of Sciences-Institute of Medicine undertook an exhaustive
study of NRC's dysfunctional "Medical" Program and recommended that NRC's
statutory authority be removed for byproduct medicine and biomedical
research.  That's how bad the NAS-IOM thought the Program was, and it was
right.  The Report, "Radiation in Medicine: A Need For Regulatory Reform"
was published in 1996.  NRC lied about what it said to every Governor in the
United States, and when accused of lying, refused to even speak to a member
of the NAS-IOM committee who volunteered to explain to the Commissioners
what the Report actually said.  And what happened?  The NRC offerred a
"deal" to the Nuclear Medicine community that if it would stop supporting
the NAS-IOM Report, NRC would completely deregulate diagnostic Nuclear
Medicine.  Unfortunately, the existing leadership at the time bought into
this "deal".  Then, of course, the NRC turned around and committed a monster
fraud, which is this new Part 35 abortion, which is not "risk-based",
"risk-informed", or "performance-based" (the NRC demonstrated at a public
meeting that it does not even understand what the phrase "performance based"
even MEANS).  The knowledgible, competent, qualified, experienced
professionals were allowed to say whatever they wanted, in writing and at
public meetings, but were virtually completely ignored.  Not only are the
regulations stupid trash, but the "secret" regulations---the Licensing
NUREG---is much, much worse, and the "Clandestine Licensing Manifesto", the
new draft licensing POLICY, is heinous, and NRC refuses to make it publicly
available---that's how bad it is.


So, Jim, just finding fraud is easy.   Then what?

Ciao, Carol

<csmarcus@ucla.edu>

  

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html