Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
[Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.]
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive today that prevents independent scientists who receive research grants from EPA from serving on any EPA advisory panels. Wholly unaddressed by the directive is any counterpart prohibition on scientists funded by industries with conflicts of interest from serving as EPA advisors. [pullquote]If Pruitt firmly believes that receipt of EPA funding is a basis for disqualifying a scientist from advising the agency, then he need look no further for someone to purge than his own recently named “advisor to the Administrator” on chemicals, Michael Dourson.[/pullquote]
When it comes to advice the agency receives, the core concern over the need to avoid conflicts of interest is this: Is advice tainted because the entity employing and paying the advisor stands to gain or lose financially from the agency decision that is under advisement? Say, for example, EPA selected as an advisor a consultant to Koch Industries who it paid for work that concluded the company’s releases into the environment of the petcoke generated by its facilities are safe. A reasonable person would have a basis to believe that Koch could benefit financially from the advice its consultant might provide the agency. In contrast, how does EPA stand to benefit financially from the results of research conducted by an EPA-funded scientist? The simple answer is, it doesn’t.
Now let’s look at it from the perspective of the scientist receiving the funding. Pruitt’s directive is based on the outlandish premise that EPA funds research in order to find problems it can then regulate, and hence that an EPA-funded researcher has an incentive to find a problem in order to better ensure continued EPA funding. The claim is that the advice offered by that researcher would be “pre-tainted” toward supporting EPA policy decisions that drive regulation. This theory that imagines a grand conspiracy between researchers and the agency is inherently flawed and unfounded. Read More