Scientific values? In service of no regulation or deregulation? This one is
sort of a mind bender.
>
> Friday, September 28, 2001
>
>
>
> New Federal Science Standards Worry University Researchers
>
> By JEFFREY BRAINARD
>
>
>
University researchers are nervous about a new set of
standards, released by the Bush administration on Thursday, that govern
the quality and objectivity of scientific
information released by federal agencies. They worry that the rules
could result in costly and time-consuming
double-checking of studies that have already undergone peer
review.
Industry advocates have supported the rules as a way to rein
in agencies that, they say, use inaccurate scientific
information to justify regulatory actions.
For scientists, a particularly worrisome aspect of the rules
would require agencies to ensure that any scientific results
they release be "capable of being substantially reproduced."
This means that agencies would have to ensure that the results could be
verified independently.
>
The rules give members of the public the right to complain
that a particular scientific study did not meet that standard
or other measures of quality. Agencies would be required to
respond to such complaints, review the study, and correct it
if it is found to be in error.
>
To perform this review, a federal agency might be forced to
repeat scientific studies performed in academe, said Tony
DeCrappeo, associate director of the Council on Governmental Relations,
a group of 144 research universities. That extra time and expense could
discourage agencies from publishing results of the studies, depriving
the public of useful information, he suggested.
>
The White House Office of Management and Budget released the rules on
Thursday, in response to a law sponsored last year by Rep. Jo Ann
Emerson, a Republican from Missouri.
The new rule is a sequel to a similar federal policy that
generated opposition from universities two years ago. That
rule stemmed from legislation by Sen. Richard C. Shelby, a
Republican from Alabama. It allowed the public to obtain
results and raw data from federally supported research that
agencies used to develop regulations. For example, when the
Environmental Protection Agency moved to tighten air-quality standards
in 1997, it relied partly on health studies by university researchers
financed by the National Institutes of Health
The policy released Thursday -- dubbed "Daughter of Shelby" by some --
would have a wider sweep, covering studies published by agencies
regardless of whether they formed the basis for regulations. Unlike Mr.
Shelby's measure, however, the new rule refers only to scientific
results, not the raw data on which they are based.
>
Agencies now have one year to adopt specific standards of quality
tailored to the kinds of information they disseminate.
> The administration plans to solicit further public comment about the
controversial requirement that studies be reproducible, but for now,
that requirement will stand.
>
In its announcement Thursday, the Office of Management and Budget said
it had tried to clarify the rule in response to
100 comments it received about an earlier draft, many of which came from
universities. The final version gives agencies leeway to determine the
"appropriate level of correction for a complaint received" about
scientific information. Agencies can raise or lower the bar for quality
depending on the importance of the information. The agencies can reject
frivolous complaints.
>
Mr. DeCrappeo of the Council on Governmental Relations said that many
academic studies relied on by federal agencies have undergone peer
review, including publication in scientific journals. That should ensure
that the studies are of sufficient quality and can be reproduced, he
said.
However, the Office of Management and Budget said that peer review may
not be sufficient in some cases. And supporters of the office's action
agree.
>
"Peer review is done in the back room, outside of the public's input,"
wrote Jim J. Tozzi in the September 17 Federal Times.
Mr. Tozzi advises businesses about regulations, and is an
adviser to the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, a watchdog group
that lobbied for the new rule. "Peer-review standards for different
journals vary substantially," he wrote, "as does the scientific
community's acceptance of those journals."
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Chronicle subscribers can read this article on the Web at this
address:
> <http://chronicle.com/daily/2001/09/2001092801n.htm>
http://chronicle.com/daily/2001/09/2001092801n.htm
>
> If you would like to have complete access to The Chronicle's Web
> site, a special subscription offer can be found at:
>
> <http://chronicle.com/4free> http://chronicle.com/4free
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> You may visit The Chronicle as follows:
>
> * via the World-Wide Web, at <http://chronicle.com>
http://chronicle.com
> * via telnet at chronicle.com
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Copyright 2001 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 10 2001 - 15:49:21 PDT