We have known this all along

[billvon 3,116]

>This is climate change in a political sense. But deliberate approaches seeing all
>sides and with both sides totally informed may stand in the way of swift action.
>For some reason, cook deliberation is now viewed as bad.

I agree. And I think we should extend this. Whenever a conservative legislator proposes a new bill before Congress, he and his family's medical history should be made available to the public, so that the public can see whether any medical conditions exist that might make his proposal unsound, biased or influenced by a mental condition.

Likewise, when any member of Congress proposes new laws to benefit veterans or active duty military, the tax returns of all veterans and soldiers affected should be made public, so that the public can see exactly how (and if) they will benefit.

Now, some people might not like this. But only by giving voters all the information can we have a truly informed, unbiased process to pass new laws. (Of course, there are people who want voters to remain uninformed, and will thus oppose this.)

[lawrocket 3]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Apparently, there is a party out there (not all of them) that thinks that providing the actual scientific justification for policy is onerous.

You overlook the fact that the law as written would require to EPA to either release personal identifying data on every participant in any clinical study they used (which would put them in violation of HIPPA),

I've read this. But I haven't yet seen anybody cite that language. To me it sounds a lot like "death panel."

Quote

Similarly, any proprietary information provided to the EPA by private companies (such as, for example, the composition of fracking fluids) would have to be made public.

I would think that if the EPA was going to have a rule allowing Oil Barron Corp to use Formula G fracking fluid that the public would be interested in knowing what exactly is in Formula G to that they can maybe comment on "this stuff contains xxx, which degrades into yyy"

"No industry is going to cooperate with the EPA if that requires them to publicly disclose trade secrets." - if those trade secrets are a great to public health or the environment I would hope a requirement to disclose them is there. This argument has "corporate shill" written all over it.

Quote

This is plainly a bill designed to paralyze the EPA and make it impossible to access much of the information needed to make rational decisions about any environmental pollutant.

So requiring information is making it impossible to access it? I understand that it may make companies more secretive. On the other hand, I also understand that trade secrets can be patented.

Quote

Similarly the other bill (summary here) that passed the House a while back would bar any scientist from discussing or referencing their own work in advising the EPA.

Right. Because we don't want the EPA or FDW banning vaccines based on the testimony of Andrew Wakefield. There actually are scientists who have an agenda. And soaking a hand in purell hand cleaner for a half hour and rubbing store receipts on the drenched hands can lead to detectable levels of chemicals. I can't remember the name of that guy, but there are scientists and even doctors and lawyer who make their livings on one topic and arguing how bad it is. See Paul Ehrlich and Ralph Nader.

Quote

For example, because I have received NIH funding to work on mosquito-transmitted diseases I would be banned from providing expert testimony, on anything having to do with vector-borne diseases.

No. You would be prohibited from relying on your own studies. You'd be expected to coherently summarize the state of knowledge and research. I've used experts all the time and rarely do they actually discuss their own research.

Quote

If you exclude all the scientists who actually work on a topic from providing expertise, who do you have left?

You don't do that. You exclude the Wakefields from testifying abot all the evils their own research has found. Dudes who pump themselves up and use the testimony as a political pulpit. If some other scientists want to come in and po up Wakefield then they can go right ahead. If another scientist wants to come in and say "Wakefield's findings are bs and I'll summarize the findings of a dozen other studies that I didn't participate in that I find compelling against his bs" then that's fine.

Who knows more about nuclear weapons than their manufacturers? Who knows more about Viagra than Pfizer? Nobody. Who knows more about whale hunts than Greenpeace? who knows more about tobacco than the tobacco companies?

We saw what happens when tobacco company scientists testify about their research. I actually applaud the effort to consider people without a personal stake in the outcome.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Reductio ad absurdum?

Show me where the law states that the personal medical history or information of any individual is required for an EPA rule session.

This is an extraordinary claim. Not that I would put it past any politician, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I want to see it. You are the proponent of this claim so show it to me.

Note: a statement by a lawmaker on the flor of the legislature is immune from fraud, libel, etc. There is a good reason for it. And there is a long history of abuse of this privilege. In which case I think that this may be an example of the privilege in action.

Why will a politician tell an outright lie on the floor of the Legislature? Because she can.

My wife is hotter than your wife.