From Chemistry World:
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is again being accused of caving to pressure from the chemical industry after letters obtained by an environmental lobby group revealed that the agency dismissed toxicologist Deborah Rice from a scientific review panel following protests from the American Chemistry Council.
Snip.
In response, EPA not only removed Rice from the panel in August 2007 but also deleted her name and her comments relating to all four PBDEs from the panel's report, which was released last year.
Moreover, the agency will not consider the input of Rice - a former EPA toxicologist now with the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention - when drafting its final report on the chemicals, due on March 28.
More follows the flip...
PDBEs (polybrominated diphenethers) are common flame retardant chemicals. The EU's RoHS and various U.S. state regulations restrict the use of several classes of PBDEs, but most exempt decaBDE on account of it having an ambiguous health impact. The States of Washington and Maine (h/t wikipedia for the links) have banned decaPBDE, and the latter decision sets the stage for the present controversy...
The Chemistry World article lists several industry complaints concerning Dr. Rice's participation on the panel: claiming that she had given public statements against PBDEs (testimony before the Maine legislature, taking a position against decaBDE), and that she had written published articles against their use (the first of these is a short article on PBDE regulation and risk, while the second is a basic scientific study of the neonatal developmental impact on rats of decaBDE exposure - both published in 2007 in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology). Put succintly, she was removed from the panel for having done the job of a scientific expert, on the claim that her testimony and publications represented a conflict of interest.
Setting aside, for the moment, the question of whether decaBDE should be regulated or whether this resulted in a biased process (several quite well-qualified scientists remained on the panel and their comments on the risk assessment draft were left intact... available here), it's clear that Rice's removal from the panel was not based upon the merit of her position but rather that she had stated a position the American Chemistry Council found ideologically unsavory. All of these activities that allegedly constitute a conflict of interest are standard practice of her position as a toxicological expert, and that this is indeed the reason she was involved with the external panel.
Just one more small way the EPA is working to improve the lives of those with greater influence or wealth than the average American.
...and with the unintentional irony of the day...
EPA is also defending its actions. Tim Lyons, the agency's deputy press secretary, said EPA's peer review guidelines specify that potential committee members can be considered conflicted if they previously made public statements indicating a particular position on the topic under consideration.
Riddle me this, Tim: Is it a "conflict" for a former Judd Gregg staffer to man a PR position within a theoretically nonpartisan government agency?
Rep. Henry Waxman has already been informed of this, but it couldn't hurt for anyone to e-mail their representative on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and remind them that accuracy is more important to public health than industry feelings.