Professor Field takes exception to a recent Science editorial

Field, Thomas G., Jr.

English

UNH Scholars' Repository

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)Volume 8 | Number 3 Article 3June 1997Scientific Facts vs. Political ValuesThomas G. Field Jr.Professor Emeritus, University of New Hampshire School of LawFollow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/riskPart of the Environmental Sciences Commons, Law Commons, Life Sciences Commons, and theSocial and Behavioral Sciences CommonsThis Editorial is brought to you for free and open access by the University of New Hampshire – School of Law at University of New HampshireScholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002) by an authorized editor of University ofNew Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact ellen.phillips@law.unh.edu.Repository CitationThomas G. Field, Jr. , Scientific Facts vs. Political Values, 8 RISK 207 (1997).Scientific Facts vs. Political ValuesThomas G. field, Jr.As this issue goes to press, the National Academy complex1regards itself as under fire after Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v.Shalala2 found it subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act(FACA). 3 This is notably reflected in a recent Science editorial,Raiders of the Last Bastion.4 There, M. R. C. Greenwood, pointsout how this will interfere with prompt and apolitical advice:It takes 4 or 5 months to get a charter for a FACA commit-tee.... [T]he government has set a cap on the total numberof FACA committees..., making it... impossible to create400 new committees .... The regulations... also require...appropriate balance... by considering individuals who areaffected and interested as well as expert, so that politicalconsiderations become a factor in committee membership.Streamlining and facilitating creation of Academy committees seemswarranted, but openness and, to the extent possible, balance seem tooffer the most reliable control for biases that cannot and probablyshould not be eliminated.Greenwood acknowledges that "FACA's aim to make the advisoryprocess more open" is "reasonable and important" and notes that theAcademy has opened information-gathering. He then gives tworeasons for closed deliberations: To prevent funding sources fromexerting pressure on committee members and to ensure that reports arenot made public prior to review satisfying "the Academy's standards ofevidence." Neither is compelling.As recently emphasized by Carl Cranor, 5 merely selecting a"standard of evidence" is inherently normative (or "political" in a1 As defined by Greenwood, infra note 4.2 104 F.3d 424 (D.C. Cir. 1997).3 Pub. L. 92-463, Oct. 6, 1972, 86 stat. 770, codified at 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (1996).4 277 Science 163 (July 11, 1997). All quotations infra are taken from this page.5 The Normative Nature of Risk Assessment: Features and Possibilities, 8 Risk123 (1997).8 Risk. Health, Safety & Environment 207 [Summer 1997]narrow sense). Such issues should be openly addressed.6 Moreover, asnoted elsewhere in this issue of Risk:7Compared with the period before about 1970, it isunlikely that any scientific or technical group continues tobe politically detached. Most are intensely involved throughan elaborate system of consultancy, advisory committeesand participation as legal expert witnesses.Some have made a case that nothing is purely objective, 8 but, tothe extent that this is true, the inherence of normative bias does notcompel undifferentiated treatment. The key questions are: How tocategorize types of bias, and what are appropriate controls in variouscircumstances? For example, in contrast with fact, outcome or partybias, Judge J. Skelly Wright found policy ("political" in the broadestsense) bias acceptable, even desirable, in the context of agency rulemaking:9The appellees have a right to a fair and open proceeding;that right includes access to an impartial decisionmaker.Impartial, however, does not mean uninformed, unthink-ing, or inarticulate.Greenwood ends his editorial with a call to arms: "It is time forthose who care about scientific, not political advice, to speak out." Healso asks the Supreme Court or Congress to "fix the problem."This seems to ignore the fact that most, if not all, advice sought byagencies or Congress is implicitly, if not explicitly, "political" - in thesense Greenwood contemplates. Scientists, ever less apt to be obliviousto effects of their advice personally, professionally or socially, cannot beisolated. Indeed, it seems difficult to support the proposition that, wereit humanly possible, those offering scientific advice should be utterlyheedless of its implications.6 See, e.g., Thomas H. Pigford, Maximum Individual & Vicinity-Average Dosefor a Geologic Repository Containing Radioactive Waste, 8 Risk 9 (1997).7 Halina S. Brown et al., Reassessing the History of U.S. Hazardous WasteDisposal Policy..., infra 249, 271.8 See, e.g., Sheila Jasanoff, Procedural Choices in Regulatory Science, 4 Risk 143,145 (1993).9 Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 627 F.2d1151, 1174 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. den. 447 U.S. 921 (1980) (emphasis added).

Scientific Facts vs. Political Values

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1328&context=risk

Scientific Facts vs. Political Values

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNH Scholars' Repository