Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

Recommended Photo Store
 
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
 
 
 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • The Separation of Scientific Powers

    Posted by Shannon Love on October 30th, 2009 (All posts by )

    Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) has flagged an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) decision urging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use test data from companies and other existing data in judging whether chemicals found in pesticides and plastics could disrupt the human endocrine system, which releases hormones.[source]

    I suspect that the OMB is actually suggesting that the EPA use all scientific data regardless of source. US regulatory agencies have long suffered from “not invented here” syndrome in that they rather routinely reject valid scientific data that originates from any source outside themselves. For example, they often refuse to use data generated by European regulatory agencies even though the standards of those agencies are just as good as ours.

    However, I think he has a point (echoing Adam Smith) that data is suspect when it comes from companies that have an economic incentive to downplay the dangers of their products. However, Markey and others like him do not see that the EPA and other regulatory agencies have the same kind of built-in conflicts of interest as companies do.

    Since the EPA’s budget and scope of powers depend on the degree of environmental hazard believed to exist, the EPA has a built-in institutional bias towards exaggerating dangers that is every bit as strong as the bias of profit-driven companies to underplay dangers. Worse, as a political creation, the EPA is subject to ideological pressure from politicians, lobbyists and activists across the political spectrum.

    We should divide the EPA, and every other regulatory agency, into two departments that are entirely separated all the way up to and including the level of cabinet secretary. One department would be responsible for regulation while the other will be responsible for doing the science upon which the regulation depends. We might even go so far as to create a Department of Science which would perform scientific research for all regulatory agencies. Only then could we be assured that the science upon which we base our regulations would not be contaminated by institutional biases one way or the other.

    As the scope and power of government have grown, we have neglected the concept of the division of powers, even though the Founders and history judge this concept absolutely vital to maintaining freedom. Today, each regulatory agency is its own little fiefdom and many are far larger than the entire Federal government was even 80 years ago. Yet we’ve never applied the Founders’ wisdom about the separation of powers to these vast and powerful organizations.

    We need to start doing so.

     

    6 Responses to “The Separation of Scientific Powers”

    1. tehag Says:

      Good luck with that–seriously.

      Count me skeptical.I don’t think that the corruption and subversion of science by politics, a mutual undertaking of “scientists” who want fame and money and power, but not accuracy (Ehrlich, Hanson, etc.) and politicians, for whom popularity and corruption are their life’s blood, can be fixed by yet another giant government bureaucracy.

    2. Shannon Love Says:

      Tehag,

      …can be fixed by yet another giant government bureaucracy.

      Actually, I had in mind just reorganizing the existing scientist into another department.

    3. Dan @ israeli Uncensored News Says:

      On other hand, EPA routinely uses both verifiably spotty data and outright dishonest algos on global warming

    4. Whitehall Says:

      I will give credit to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They of course err on the conservative side of safety but they do a lot of cooperative work with industry and foreign sources.

      The elevation of Harry Reid’s assistant to NRC chairman bears watching though. This guy also used to be on Markey’s staff. However, so far he’s been too dorky to do any overtly political stuff.

    5. Anonymous Says:

      We should divide the EPA, and every other regulatory agency, into two departments that are entirely separated….[W]e’ve never applied the Founders’ wisdom about the separation of powers to these vast and powerful organizations.

      We need to start doing so.

      Can I say Heinlein meets Crichton?

      Science divided and separated from its regulators. I think the primary argument against it is duplication, which increases cost. This, especially, applies to Crichton’s proposal, if I recall correctly: this appears to lessen that somewhat.

      a Department of Science which would perform scientific research for all regulatory agencies. Only then could we be assured that the science upon which we base our regulations would not be contaminated by institutional biases one way or the other.

      Still, there are institutional motives to be slow and spread the work and increase bureaucratic reach.

      There is a larger problem today: no one even bothers to debate these issues. Do bureaucracies really work with science – or is the free market simply superior? As Ayn Rand averred in “Atlas Shrugged,” “free scientific inquiry” is redundant, while “government science” is a contradiction in terms.

      Nonetheless, the Terence Kealey’s “The Economic Laws of Scientific research was reviewed in Reason, Feb. 1997. The reviewer, John Staddon, closed with similar pessimism:

      Unfortunately, defenders of the [statist and interventionist] status quo [in government funded science] seem reluctant to engage in debate. After describing his own repeated attempts to defend a position similar to Kealey’s, physicist Roy recently commented: “I have yet to find one similarly reasoned book or paper replying to these arguments.” It’s time to hear a detailed refutation from those who believe that American science lives or dies by the present system.

    6. Shannon Love Says:

      Do bureaucracies really work with science – or is the free market simply superior?

      It really doesn’t matter which is superior, I doubt in the short term political climate, you could get anyone to trust a private source of safety research. Moreover, how would you pay for it?

      We don’t have a means of converting basic facts into property and therefore no means of funding the production of facts. If you discover that chemical X is perfectly safe to use under such and such conditions, how do you get people to pay you for doing that? Even if you could sell the information to one person, how would you prevent it from being broadcast all over the world within minutes?

      It’s the old economic conundrum of the weather service. It cost a lot to collect the data to make a prediction but once the prediction is made there is no practical way to turn the prediction into property and force people to exchange something of value for the information. This creates an enormous free-rider problem.

      The free-market isn’t magic. It requires specific mechanism to be in place and working before the market can function.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.