Recent Comment
Share
Science is science...right? EcoGeeks should be allowed to perform their duties to {digg}http://digg.com/environment/Report_EPA_Heavily_Pressured_into_Bias_by_Bush_Admin{/digg}the best of their abilities. Even if they happen to work for a government that doesn't particularly love truth, they shouldn't feel any obligation to alter their studies or misrepresent their data. That's just not SCIENCE!
Well, throw away those notions, folks...the Union of Concerned Scientists just conducted a report in which they surveyed 1,586 people working for the EPA, and they found the following:
- 889 report that they have personally experienced political pressure in the course of performing their duties.
- 400 said that they had observed EPA administrators, appointed staff, and higher-ups misrepresenting their findings
- 285 said that they had observed incomplete or biased information used to justify policies and management decisions.
OK...I would like to provide you with intelligent analysis of this situation, but I'm gonna have to take some time to calm down first.
Our brothers at EnviroWonk have this to say:
The report points to the White House Office of Management and Budget as one of the worst offenders, demonstrating where most of this pressure is coming from. While this is not terribly surprising, it does attest to the depth of the problems at the EPA under the Bush Administration, and to the frustration and low morale of an agency being tugged in two diametrically opposed directions.
Now, this was a questionnaire sent to 5,419 EPA staffers who voluntarily responded. It could be that those who had experienced political interference were most inclined to complain about it and return the survey. However, we EnviroWonks are everywhere, including at the EPA. The current and/or previous first-hand experiences of our brethren do nothing to disprove these allegations.
Somewhat mysterious...but telling.
What do we do when the major body controlling environmental law is so very easy to manipulate...not just into relaxing regulations, but into manipulating data. This is the stone and steel that we are supposed to be building the safety of our country upon. If it can bend so easily, I simply cannot see its strength.
Via UoCS and EnviroWonk
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Bob Wallace, April 27, 2008
I read what they had to say and then cross checked with a couple other sites such as the Mayo Clinic.
While I found no difference between the sites, I came away a bit sad that I wasn't comfortable taking the word of our government scientists.
Looking forward to a better government in 2008.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, April 27, 2008
I read what they had to say and then cross checked with a couple other sites such as the Mayo Clinic.
While I found no difference between the sites, I came away a bit sad that I wasn't comfortable taking the word of our government scientists.
Looking forward to a better government in 2008.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Anonymous, April 27, 2008
Somehow, they have little credibility left with me. This report may be correct, which would be sad, but the source is rather dubious.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Brian, May 01, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
written by warhammer gold, October 28, 2008
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
i mean, if they were only greedy, but their actions have more implications than that, for the environment, and people DIE (in war, the third world, and in this country too). see, here i go again ranting. it makes me so mad.
thanks for bringing this to the table, and keep'em coming, and i'll keep sharing them