Witness Concerns

“Legislators should also take care to limit the role of scientific advisory panels to advising on science, and not to embed their policy views in their scientific recommendations.”

  • Testimony of Ms. Susan E. Dudley, Director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center

“The EPA Science Advisory Board website described an orderly and transparent process for making appointments to advisory committees.  In actual practice the selection process is conducted behind closed doors by the EPA Science Advisory Board staff…. The current EPA view appears to… view biases as originating with employment by or serving as a consultant to industry.  I argue that academic scientists who are supported by funding from EPA, NIH and other government agencies also bring their biases to the advisory table.”

  • Testimony of Dr. Roger McClellan, former Chair, EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee

“One could easily conclude that the Panel’s input was merely a formality and was not intended to be seriously considered, much like EPA treats input from the States.”

  • Testimony on EPA’s Science Advisory Board Mercury Review Panel from Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Director, Toxicology Division, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

“The public comments were not weighed and discussed by CASAC-PM in spite of the fact that most were well-reasoned and relevant.  If the agenda included time for discussion of public comments and formal acceptance or rejection of their recommendations, the process might be improved…. In sum, the current process, although elegant and efficient, in my opinion is flawed, narrow, and possibly ethically questionable.”

  • Testimony on EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Particulate Matter Review Panel from Dr. Robert F. Phalen, Professor of Medicine and Co-Director, Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory, University of California, Irvine