You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Science' category.
It is with deep sadness we inform you of the sudden passing of Kathyrn R Mahaffey, PhD. Kate had an exceptional and diverse career, with appointments at FDA, NIOSH, NIEHS and EPA. Most recently, Kate served as a Professorial Lecturer at the George Washington University School of Public Health.
Her husband, David Jacobs offers the following remembrance and tribute to her significant contributions to the public’s health. Information about a memorial service appears at the end of this post.
Kathryn R. Mahaffey passed away peacefully in her sleep June 2, 2009 after decades of work that advanced the nation’s health and environment. She is remembered as a beloved wife, mother, scientist and community member who served as a source of inspiration with her principled and tireless intellect. She was the rare scientist who knew how to apply the lessons from academic research to protect the public heath. Her work changed the face of epidemic heavy metal poisoning, endocrine disruptors and many other environmental pollutants that afflict children, pregnant women and at-risk populations. Literally millions of children have avoided the tragedy of lead and mercury poisoning as a consequence of her work.
We were delighted in March when President Obama issued a memorandum on scientific integrity, stating, “Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues.” The memorandum gave the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy 120 days to “develop recommendations for Presidential action designed to guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch,” based on six specific principles.
OSTP in turn is asking the public for comments that will help it craft the recommendations. If you have thoughts about scientific integrity in the federal government, and the recommendations that OSTP should give to the president, submit your comments by next Wednesday, May 13th. Details about what kind of comment OSTP is seeking and how to submit comments are in the Federal Register notice; also, the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has been a leading voice for scientific integrity over the past several years, has posted a webpage that includes links and information for those preparing comments.
University of Maryland Law Professor Rena Steinzor called for fundamental changes to the role of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in federal regulatory review, at a House Committee hearing held on April 30. The Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science and Technology has been examining OIRA’s functions and responsibilities, with the chairman stating:
“…Though rarely in the headlines, OIRA has, in the years since its creation under President Reagan, quietly become the most powerful regulatory office in the Federal government.”
Professor Steinzor noted that the nomination of Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s choice for OIRA chief,* is looming, thus it is appropriate to examine the office’s function. Steinzor made three specific points:
Today, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies regarding scientific integrity. It begins:
Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, increased efficiency in the use of energy and other resources, mitigation of the threat of climate change, and protection of national security.
It’s wonderful to have an administration committing so clearly to the use of science to inform health and environmental decisions. To make this happen, Obama has assigned the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy the responsibility for “ensuring the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch’s involvement with scientific and technological processes.” The memorandum specifies that the OSTP Director must do the following:
I’ve written before about this project; now, we’re very close to finishing data collection and are looking for a few more government scientists to interview.
At the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at George Washington University School of Public Health, we’ve launched a multi-part study to understand the current policies surrounding scientists’ work at government agencies and to create recommendations for policies that support strong science and the appropriate role of scientists and researchers within our health and environment agencies.
Many talented government scientists leaving the federal agencies that protect our health and environment, and one of the ways to attract and retain more scientists to these important positions is to ensure that the rights and responsibilities of government scientists are clearly delineated and protected. In addition to the problems of political interference with science that have made headlines in recent years, government scientists also face a unique set of challenges involving balancing their work as researchers, regulators, and applied scientists with their roles as employees of structured, hierarchical organizations.
The major piece of the research is talking to actual government scientists – and that’s where we need your help. If you’re a current or former government scientist with an advanced degree and at least five years of experience working for a science-based health or environment federal agency, we’d like to interview you (more details below). Or, if you don’t meet that description but know people who do, we’d be grateful if you’d pass this information along to them, and/or direct them to this webpage.
Here are the official details:
We’re delighted to learn that The Pump Handle’s own David Michaels has won the John P. McGovern Science and Society Award from Sigma Xi, the international honor society of research scientists and engineers. The award honors people who are highly visible and prominent spokespersons for the public understanding and appreciation of science.
Our regular readers probably already know that David champions the use of science to protect public health, whether the hazard is a butter-flavoring chemical or a drug. He’s known for exposing how product defense firms, sequestered science, and manufactured uncertainty can harm us. You can read all about these problems and solutions in his acclaimed book Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health.
Sigma Xi also announced three other awards: the William Procter Prize for Scientific Achievement went to physicist Deborah S. Jin; the Watson Chubb Award for Innovation to food-safety scientist Timothy D. Phillips; and the Young Investigator Award to Brandt F. Eichman.
We’ve posted a news release at DefendingScience.org, and Sigma Xi has details on all four awards.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has just released a report on the media policies at federal agencies, in order to assess “the degree of freedom with which science is communicated at federal agencies.” The nonprofit organization analyzed 15 regulatory and science agencies’ policies governing communication with the media and the public, and then surveyed a cross-section of federal scientists to learn how the policies are implemented.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was the only agency to earn an “A” grade from UCS for its policy (though its performance is rated “needs improvement”), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration the lone recipient of an “F.” Here’s UCS’s explanation of the variation:
I’m repeating myself here, but it’s for a good cause. At the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at George Washington University School of Public Health, we’ve launched a multi-part study to understand the current policies surrounding scientists’ work at government agencies and to create recommendations for policies that support strong science and the appropriate role of scientists and researchers within our health and environment agencies.
Many talented government scientists leaving the federal agencies that protect our health and environment, and one of the ways to attract and retain more scientists to these important positions is to ensure that the rights and responsibilities of government scientists are clearly delineated and protected. In addition to the problems of political interference with science that have made headlines in recent years, government scientists also face a unique set of challenges involving balancing their work as researchers, regulators, and applied scientists with their roles as employees of structured, hierarchical organizations.
The major piece of the research is talking to actual government scientists – and that’s where we need your help. If you’re a current or former government scientist with an advanced degree and at least five years of experience working for a science-based health or environment federal agency, we’d like to interview you (more details below). Or, if you don’t meet that description but know people who do, we’d be grateful if you’d pass this information along to them, and/or direct them to this webpage.
Here are the official details:
In 1971 under the National Cancer Act, Congresss authorized the 3-person President’s Cancer Panel which is charged with monitoring the “development and execution of the National Cancer Program” and preparing periodic progress reports for the President. Over the years, the Panel has examined quality of life for cancer patients, access to care issues, and lifestyle risk factors related to cancer. The Panel’s focus for 2008-2009 is “Cancer and the Environment,” a topic endorsed by The Collaborative on Health and Environment (CHE) and the topic of a draft consensus statement released by CHE.
The Panel’s first meeting on “Cancer and the Environment” was held on Sept 16, with 12 scientific experts making presentations at the public event. The speakers included Richard Clapp, D.Sc. of Boston University, Frank Mirer, PhD of Hunter College, Adam Finkel, Sc.D of UMDNJ (full statements provided below) and Devra Davis, PhD, Phil Landrigan, MD, Paul Shulte, PhD, David Kriebel, ScD, Jeanne Stellman, PhD, Christopher Portier, PhD, Jeanne Rizzo, RN, and Daniel Wartenberg, PhD. Read the rest of this entry »
I’m repeating myself here, but it’s for a good cause. At the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at George Washington University School of Public Health, we’ve launched a multi-part study to understand the current policies surrounding scientists’ work at government agencies and to create recommendations for policies that support strong science and the appropriate role of scientists and researchers within our health and environment agencies.
Many talented government scientists leaving the federal agencies that protect our health and environment, and one of the ways to attract and retain more scientists to these important positions is to ensure that the rights and responsibilities of government scientists are clearly delineated and protected. In addition to the problems of political interference with science that have made headlines in recent years, government scientists also face a unique set of challenges involving balancing their work as researchers, regulators, and applied scientists with their roles as employees of structured, hierarchical organizations.
The major piece of the research is talking to actual government scientists – and that’s where we need your help. If you’re a current or former government scientist with an advanced degree and at least five years of experience working for a science-based health or environment federal agency, we’d like to interview you (more details below). Or, if you don’t meet that description but know people who do, we’d be grateful if you’d pass this information along to them, and/or direct them to this webpage.
Here are the official details:
