Tuesday, May 18, 2010
George Claxton discovered this article during his recent research and wanted to share it with VVA's leadership as it offers documented proof of the coverup re dioxin that he and others have been talking about these many years. This article appeared in the 2005 American Journal of Public Health.
There is broad agreement that regulatory decisions should be based on evidence. But interested parties have used the "sound science" mantle to demand extended research, analysis, and review of evidence for the sole purpose of delaying health-protective regulation. This historical review shows how the forces behind the "sound science" reasoning leading to the Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc decision on science in the courtroom have operated in parallel in environmental regulation.Like Daubert, certain "sound science" regulatory tools can be used to improve decision quality. However, these tools can also challenge the federal government's ability to safeguard the public's health and well-being. Most recently, political tampering with science provides the foundation for some policymakers to disregard science completely in the environmental regulatory process.
July 2005, Vol 95, No. S1 | American Journal of Public Health S81-S91
© 2005 American Public Health Association
PUBLIC HEALTH MATTERS
Regulatory Parallels to Daubert: Stakeholder Influence, "Sound Science," and the Delayed Adoption of Health-Protective Standards
Roni A. Neff, ScM and Lynn R. Goldman, MD, MPH
Roni A. Neff is with the Department of Health Policy and Management and Lynn R. Goldman is with the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Md.
Correspondence: Request for reprints should be sent to Lynn R. Goldman, MD, MPH, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe St., Room E6636, Baltimore, MD 21205 (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org).