Integrity in Science
Return to CSPI U.S.
   
Plenary Debate
Integrity in Science
Agenda
Speakers
Articles, Press Releases, Reports
Keynote Address
—Brian Baird D-WA
Plenary Debate
—"The Data Quality Act and OMB Peer Review Honest Evaluations or New Tools for Manufacturing Doubt and Delay?"
Panel A
—"Misusing Science To Manufacture Doubt and Delay"
Panel B
—"Corporate and Government Suppression of Research"
Rachel Carson Award
—Presentation of Award to Theo Colborn
After Lunch Speaker
—"Industry-Driven Science and the Corruption of Evidence-Based Medicine"
Plenary Panel
—"Science v. Commerce in Medicine"
Panel A
—"Science Journals, Science Journalism and Disclosure"
Panel B
—"The Real Junk Science"
Final Plenary
—"A Program for Reform"

The Data Quality Act and OMB Peer Review-Honest Evaluations or New Tools for Manufacturing Doubt and Delay?
The Data Quality, which Congress passed with scant debate, and the OMB peer review proposal have stirred enormous controversy. Proponents say that the acts create a much needed process by which regulatory agencies are held accountable for the integrity of the scientific information they provide. However, environmental organizations, watchdog groups and other critics contend these are tools of industry that effectively bog down new regulations with "paralysis by analysis." Critics say the act allows judges, rather than scientists, to determine what constitutes sound science; creates disincentives for regulatory agencies to publish or act on any information; and allows industry more control over the regulatory process.

Moderator: Jocelyn Kaiser, Writer, Science Magazine
Listen to Audio [ mp3 - 2,490kb ]

Panelists:
 


Sean Moulton
Senior Policy Analyst
OMB Watch

Bio with Disclosure
Listen to Audio [ mp3 - 3,609kb ]

"The Data Quality Act is a tool. The problem with the Data Quality Act is that it's industry's tool. It's industry designed, and it's industry used...What the tool does...is that it delays, it dilutes, and it derails."

"Before the data quality act, if you had a problem with [the] science [that supported government regulations]...the process that [was] used was a series of ex-parte meetings with scientists, ex-parte meetings with administration officials, ex-parte meetings with me and you tried to get some resolution...After the data quality act, it's very transparent."

Jim Tozzi
Board of Advisors
Ctr. for Regulatory Effectiveness

Bio with Disclosure
Listen to Audio [ mp3 - 3,953kb ]
Rebutting Sean [ mp3 - 888kb ]
Rebutting David [ mp3 - 2,347kb ]

David Michaels, Ph.D.
Professor
Dept. of Env. and Occ. Health George Washington School of Medicine

Bio with Disclosure
Listen to Audio [ mp3 - 4,291kb ]
Rebutting Jim Tozzi [ mp3 - 1,381kb ]

"[The new peer review process] sounds to me like a recipe for silent government. With all these checks and balances...if I were an agency head I'd think twice about putting out any information unless I absolutely had to. And this is precisely the goal of the OMB effort: To silence agencies that protect the health, safety and environment of the public."