It is a great thing that the Environmental Protection Agency has scientific panels to advise it. We also appreciate that some of these consultants will have gained some of their expertise in private industry.
What we're not so crazy about is the notion of EPA advisers working for companies that make or work with manufacturers of the very chemicals they are evaluating.
That's the subject of a House committee investigation that was opened Monday, and for once we have to say this is a good use of Congressional oversight. Complete conflict of interest can be tough to avoid once you get to levels where there are only a handful of experts. Still, EPA science advisers assessing human health effects should not at the same time be getting research support on the same chemicals they are examining.
It's a subject close to home. Michigan legislators are involved, and so to an extent is Dow Agro, which makes ethylene oxide and also provided research support for a scientist serving on a panel to examine its health effects.
For some of the eight scientists in question, the links merely raise an eyebrow. For others, the conflict appears more glaring.
As we said, in some fields the pool of knowledgeable consultants is small. Still, it seems there should be enough to prevent, for example, the Exxon Mobil employee from being tapped for the ethylene oxide panel, which the company also makes. There is no way to claim that person does not have a vested interest in whether there is cancer-causing potential.
If the EPA is to have any weight and credibility, appointments where clear conflict of interest exists must stop.
©Midland Daily News 2008
http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19409125&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=472539&rfi=6
No comments:
Post a Comment