Telstra has revealed the addition of almost one million new mobile services in the six months to December 2011, but Sensis revenues plummeted 24 percent in 12 months.
read more
William Atkins
Sunday, 02 March 2008 20:33
Does such actions compromise the safety of products being reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency?
American toxicologist Deborah C. Rice was the chairperson of an Environmental Protection Agency scientific panel that was assisting the EPA in determining the appropriateness of the brominated compound deca-BDE (deca), a flame retardant widely used in the plastic housings of electronic equipment such as television sets. Deca is a type of PBDE (polybrominated diphenyl ether).
Rice was appointed in 2007 to the EPA scientific panel to consider the chemical deca, but was removed in August 2008.
There are many articles discussing this issue. Two such articles are from the United Press International (“Report: Lobbyist had EPA panelist booted”) and Boston Globe (“Removal from review panel stirs defenders of Maine scientist”).
These articles state that Rice has studied low doses of deca in the past as part of scientific research studies and experiments. She reported neurological effects in laboratory animals. Rise testified before the Maine Legislature (as a scientist for the Maine Department of Health and Human Services), stating that she is in support of a state ban on the compound [deca] because scientific tests show it to be toxic.
The American Chemistry Council, a lobbying group for chemical manufacturers, complained to the EPA that her appointment had "the perception of a potential conflict of interest."
Under the EPA's handbook for advisory committees, scientific peer reviewers should not "have a conflict of interest" or "appear to lack impartiality." [Los Angeles Times: “Outspoken scientist dismissed from panel on chemical safety”]
In the Los Angeles Times article, the reporter states that lobbyists with the chemical industry say that, “she is a biased advocate who has compromised the integrity of the EPA's review of the flame retardant.”
Ok, I see no problem with this statement and her removal. If all members of EPA chemical safety boards are to be unbiased and not to have a pre-determined opinion on any certain chemical they are reviewing, then her removal was appropriate.
However, if she is removed for her perceived biases, then any member that has a biased attitude should also be removed. Please read on.
 |
Microsoft Office 365Try an easy-to-use set of web-enabled tools for business-class productivity services. Office 365 provides anywhere-access to email, important documents, contacts, and calendars on almost any device.  |
