I can't wait to see what max comes up with from hotair and pajamasmedia.
I see we now have more poster press agents for the latest bit of disingenuous slander gone viral. One needn't wait for hot air or any other beacon of enlightenment, not if press parrots and dupes had actually read the legislation.
This nonsense starts in the Salon Headline :
"House Republicans just passed a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on their own research..." and continues in lame sarcasm that the bill is "....placing restrictions on those pesky scientists..." . In an exercise of mock disbelief the article claims that "In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn't clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research —".
This laughable slandering by mischaracterization, as usual, disintegrates upon investigation:
First, contrary to the articles implication, the law does not require or "make room" for industry representation. Rather it does not permit the exclusion of anyone with "substantial and relevant expertise" from the Board merely due to their affiliation with any entity, group, or cause, so long as they disclose any potential interest to the Administrator and to the public. And it such membership cannot conflict with other federal law on conflict of interest. (And it makes no changes in the nomination process, other than encouraging public nominations from government agencies).
Second, in matters involving a specific party's interest, "no Board member having an interest in the specific party shall participate in that activity;", meaning that is a specific conflict of interest is not permitted. And that also means board members "may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work".
You see, contrary to the Salon shouting and the Hill parroting, the law does not exclude "any advisory activity directly or indirectly" involve their own work NOR does it forbid sharing of expertise from their own research. Rather, it excludes any member from an activity that involves
a review or evaluation of their own work. In other words, if the the board is conducting a review of the literature or state of the science, when it comes to specifically evaluating a model or study, the author of that study does not get to evaluate and review the robustness of his own work. (Duh, soon someone will argue that authors ought to participate in their own peer reviews).
Finally, it does not allow any lobbyist to be appointed (apparently a problem under the Obama "no lobbyist" administration, it actually appoints lobbyists).
So yes folks, the EPA would no longer be able to ask a scientist to review his own work, and then have him publish a report on how great and robust that work is under an anonymous "EPA review"; a requirement that ought to be appreciated by anyone who opposes charlatanism, non-disclosure, and is concerned about conflicts of interest.
What you weren't told
The important elements that Salon totally ignored (as did the Hill) was the bills attempt to create the open and transparent government that the Obama administration opposes:
It requires open and public solicitation of Board members and their connections to any group.
It requires solicitation of nominations from relevant Federal agencies, as well as state and local government.
It requires that the list be public, including the "identity of the entities that nominated each,"
It requires nominees to "... file a written report disclosing financial relationships and interests, including Environmental Protection Agency grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or other financial assistance, that are relevant to the Board's advisory activities for the three-year period prior to the date of their nomination..." It also requires disclosure of all relevant professional activities, including representational work for any entity or interest, and contract work.
It requires all reports and scientific information be made public.
In other words, like the Public Records Act (once supported and promoted by liberals in a prior era), it demands that "the most transparent administration in history" and all future administrations live up to their touted (but insincere) ethical standards.
That liberalism has turned on their own ideals for open and participatory government its more than ironic, it is indicative of its de-evolution into moral degeneracy.
