To intiate the tone of this chapter, I would liek to start with a quote from Micahels,"This idea is to 'institutionalize' the strategies I have been writing about-to construct bureaucratic mechanisms with which corporate interests can question the science underlying not just regulation but virtually any "information" disseminated by federal agencies as well. This would be the very triumph of uncertainty."
What this chapter thrives upon is the industry creating uncertainty in research, data, test results, etc. With uncertainty creation, came the Shelby Ammendment. The Shelby Ammendment was created as an open invitation for ANYONE to use the Freedom of Information Act to "harass scientists, question their work, muddy the waters, delay action, and perhaps even steal intellectual property". Privately funded research is not covered. There was a hidden agenda to this, however. According to the Shelby Ammendment, industry should be free to manipulate the data of government-funded work, but federal agencies and other groups should not be able to analyze industry-sponsored research submitted to the agencies during the regulatory process. So......Freedom of Information Act? Or Freedom for Industry Act? Did the Shelby Ammendment let anyone's voice be heard, or industries?
Do you think this was the only success for industry? WRONG. The Data Quality Act (DQA) became a useful new weapon in the arsenal of all those who opposed public health and workplace regulations, and serious science. Furthermore, Philip Morris was a driving force behind the DQA, of of the several successes of the cigarette manufacturer's "Sound Science Project". This act was enabled with ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information and to establish procedures that allow formal challenges to information disseminated by federal agencies. i don't know about you, but I see the word CHALLENGE. How can industry, especially Big Tobacco, challenge us and we can't challenge them? Why do we have to play by the rules? Why can't we make the rules?
Also, the Data Quality Act was known as the "junk science" movement, the law would simply stop the 'junk science' that can lead to useless and expensive regulations. Excuse me? Useless and expensive regulations? I don't know about you, but I beleive that the unsaid idea here is to STOP all regulatory science initiatives and virtually ALL regulations to give industry control. This shows that the potential for mischief by the DQA is practically unlimited!!!
As you can see, industry's goal has always been to stall and, hopefully, stop agencies attempts to actually issue regulations that protect the environment and public health. Such as, trying to eliminate EPA's current procedures of review of products and industry. Industry has said that if they changes current procedures it would be, "redundant, costly, wasteful of time, and worst of all, duplicitous". Why would they want that? So they can keep telling society what they want them to hear....no surprise...right?
But, it gets better! Oh yes! Industry warned that the new proposal for peer reviews as drafted would mainly lead to increased costs and delays in disseminating information to the public and in hinder health, safety, environmental, and other regulations whilw potentailly damaging the existing systme of peer review. So they are on our side? So they want to keep the same system because it works? NO........they want to keep it this way since it's already manipulated by them to their benefit!
Bottom Line: Industry thinks of themselves, creates lies, and manipulated processes and people to their advantage. How did that happen? How was the involvement of Big Tobacco with the creation of the Data quality Act overlooked in the beginning, but now is well-recognized? Interesting..........................
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The shelby Amendment is ridiculour!!! "Freedom of Information Act? Or Freedom for Industry Act?"If federal government lost the authorization of investigation and surveillance, who can regulate and manipulate the legal development of those industries. That is not a "neoliberalism", loosing up whatever refrain from government policy as quick. Those companies can not cover the bright sky which we are really want to see through. They did not responsible of themselves and citizen. The real science, which bravely to break through the old and wrong conceptions and perspectives, is a representation of right.
ReplyDeleteI am wondering how can the government passed these acts and make them to work? How can we keep on fighting again these companies under those wrong beginning?
I find it too funny that it usually comes down to local, state, and federal government not doing their jobs, These acts or amendments are just to ridiculous. Just like Alyson mentioned they companies have a word to say but the consumers cannot say anything about it. I know I've said that change starts with us, but reading this chapters scares me a bit, on how much power we really have. I don't know if this is true, but I even heard a rumor that soon politicians will be sponsored by various companies. It'll look like a nascar race on capital hill, with state reps wearing patches of companies on their sleeves. Its crazy to say but our country is being run by these huge corporations who are twisting the law, so that it benefits them. I did not play devils advocate in this chapter and try to see things not from a public health perspective. What was done here was completely wrong and I will admit that. My question is, and its really on going, is how is the material presented in this chapter compared with actions of corporations internationally?
ReplyDeleteI think this boo is a health risk to me - it is giving me hypertention. And, no you can't review that:>)
ReplyDeleteG's comment helped to clear up what I thought they were saying:>( Also, Hui - I totally agree this in NOT Neoliberalism!
Every nation that has any kind of world power, the government regulates what companies can and can not do. Otherwise, companies would get away with murder . . . oh wait, they have!
So if industries start peer reviewing people's work, then are going to be as maticulous, and use the same demographics? Because . . . if all they want to do is skew the data in their favor, then just look at it and phase it differently. When these companies are putting out their own research (that they don't want to be regulated), are there peer reveiws and "check and balances" to make sure they are not producing "junk science"? It does not sound like it.
How does the public become more educated about issues like this? And, how are we able to have a voice to see things change? I mean for me this chapter was a little hard to follow, so how can issues that affect the whole nation be more clearily explained to the general working class. Or, would this be a lost cause because this demographic is just worried about making it through another day?
14th Amendment: Significance of Due Process Clause
ReplyDeleteGovernment cannont deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, of fairness and reasonablness of such action by governement.
According to 14th amendment, each individual has the fundemental fairness. So shouldn’t we have the right to know the truth of all claims from all the research, in order to know what may and may not have harm on us? We should be the ones who can decide what and what not to belivie, without the government or industries having the voice.
It's all to obvious what industry was trying to do. Sure it seems like a great idea, let's have any research funded by the government available to everyone, so we can make sure that they are not making false claims. Sure, that's great, we should have access to that data...oh but subtract any privately funded research, just focus on govt. funded. Privately funded should be reviewed even more closely! Obviously they were trying to protect the researchers they recruited, hired, and paid to have the research lean to their side in the first place. I guess my question is how blind does industry think we are? This really just makes me wonder what other bills, laws, or policies have been implemented under false pretenses. Quite a few I'm sure.
ReplyDeleteIt was bound to happen... a quote from 1984. "Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary." George Orwell
ReplyDeleteAnother quote. "Only the hand that erases can write the true thing." Meister Eckhardt
Another. "There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening."
Marshall McLuhan the medium is the MASSAGE
I think these quotes have very powerful messages. First of all, the truth is subjective and determined by the writer of our history. The writers, Industry, of the Shelby Ammendment did just that. In the chapter Michaels discusses how Dr. Graham created studies that domeonstrated that the "cost of regulations outweighed their benefits." He re-wrote the truth convincing individuals his agenda was "correct" and "scientific" way.
However, I feel the other quote is vitally important to us as public health educators--especially you Paula because we don't want you developing hypertension!! The message there is clear, as long as we and the rest of the scientific community are willing to make a stand and think about what is happening to us instead of just reacting to what is happening to us, nothing is unstopable. We can prevent Industry from controlling our lives and health by way of policy. As long as we're paying attention to who is writing the history and who is doing the erasing, we will know. And knowledge is powerful.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI guess there is a reason for the emerging of Sheley Amendment. Everybody here think it is ridiculous, however it is still created and survival. Our government, I think at the first beginning was empower by people, citizens to provide a regulation of our society. However, by time, the profit and relationship between government and industry companies cannot make a clean break. In this case, who can perform the role to judge the right or wrong? I think as long as the institution which perform the judge still have profit connection with any companies and funding, it cannot consider to be fair. However, if it does not rely to any funding, how can it survival in this society?
ReplyDeleteIt is possible, despite the obvious slant that Michaels argues towards the corrupt agenda of corporation/private business, the shelby Amendment, Data Quality Act and Peer Review Process legislation have all been put into place with the desire to act as a check and balance for the work of the federal government and to protect 'people' from having no recourse to legislation that's enacted from their own data sources. Is there any shred of support to this? Are there cases where the government scientists have used data in manipulative ways that has negatively impacted businesses or citizens?
ReplyDeleteI, too, like alyson pointed out in her outline, noted the somewhat empty words of former white house management in budget, Jim Tozzi, who links the DQA with cutting useless and expensive regulations. The words are especially empty when one recognizes that the enactment of the Peer Review and information Quality proposal allows for petitions that expensive and slow. I am interested to see a cost analysis- what money is being saved here, if any?
It is interesting to note the many examples of petitions filedin 2003 after the Data Quality Act went into effect late 2002. Do the messages of these petitions go only to the government, or are they leaked to the media as well? If so, isn't the damage done in some ways already- regardless of the the ruling of the petition? If the media suspects doubt on anyone's part isn't it safe to assume they will doubt?
One page 181, Michaels gives a short description of a booklet put out by the EPA and how it was effected by the DQA. In this case, the EPA seemed to fold, another example, relating to the National Assessment on Climate Change indicated that the petitioning entity 'won' resulting in savings for the Administration because they didn't have to go to court. How often does the Government battle the petitions out in court? Is there compromise to save government money most of the time?
It seems to me that government, which is set by the people or in 'public intrest' would have less of a bias and therefore be less likely to manipulate data from research studies; but industry, or private sector business, on the other hand, which is set up and/or owned by individuals with very specific biases and self-interests would be much more likely to have cause to manipulate data in studies. Does it seem odd to anyone else that we put so much scrutiny on the feds and so little on private business? What, if any, are the checks and balances set for private sector or corporation funded research studies?
When is regulation wrong or unwarranted? Is there a way to privatize regulation? Could we pit scheming private enterprise against other scheming private enterprise? Can you think of other approaches?
ReplyDeleteAlyson has cued my concern about finding reliable sources of information. While broadcast news is regulated, the regulations on cable news are much less restrained to standards related to community interest. The rise of the foxy shoppers, cable news, corporate dominance of radio stations, and efforts to manipulate internet search engines are all bad news. The decline of journalism and the disapperance of independent newspapers is also bad news. The internet does provides access to information, but it takes knowledge to discern knowledge amongst the many bits of information that make an exploding virtual universe.
ReplyDeleteWhat do we know and how do we know it? Will democracy or any form of government survive an inability to discern the difference between what is popular-or-just-acceptable and what is necessary to preserve life, health, and community? While the conventions that have supported racism, sexism, and other forms of intolerance are being undermined in our postmodern world, science and other necessary frameworks for social organization are being undermined by simple assertion.
Your lives are faced with two major challenges. The first is discerning truth and knowledge; this is not new. The second is the need to organize our world around truths and knowledge that will support life, health, and community. This second challenge is so much more difficult in your post-modern era. Unlike my life and coming of age in the modern era when science had increasing sway, your lives find science under attack by not just corporations and their politicians, but also by anybody with a movie camera, radio show, blog, or other means to shout out an idea.
Your era requires intellectual fitness made up of strength of character, the suppleness of an open mind, the skills of a critical thinker, and the hearty endurance of a Jimmy Carter and others who actively pursue truth and justice til the day they die. The only excuse for retiring one's mind today is dementia.
Despite the ways that some may try to frame the Shelby Amendment and Data Quality Act, they are a direct threat to consumer's safety.
ReplyDeleteAccording to a 2004 article from the Washington Post online entitled 'Data Quality' Law is Nemesis to Regulation, "many consumers, conservationists and worker advocates say the act is inherently biased in favor of industry. By demanding that government use only data that have achieved a rare level of certainty, these critics maintain, the act dismisses scientific information that in the past would have triggered tighter regulation." These tighter regulations protect people from allowing products to contain toxins too high potentially for safe use. Once again we see that the work of a few lobbyists and special interst groups and powerful money source has pushed legislation that impacts negatively on all of us.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3733-2004Aug15_2.html
Alyson, you really brought up a great point in your presentation. Is our entire government wrapped up in this behavior or is it due to a few individuals who have no ethic qualms about holding up process and demanding gains for their state? Makes me question why these types of people are elected. I think you're right though, not everyone in our government thinks like the individuals who participate solely to gain something for themselves/their state. I think it's easy to for our representatives to start with their hearts and minds in the right place and then get beat down by the system and the process of politics. Perhaps we should be considering a different way to pass reglation and policy??
ReplyDeletePeople wonder, and thing, "Well one person can't make a difference?!" Clearly they can! Weather it is for the good or for the bad, it is up to that person.
ReplyDeleteI found Dr. J's comments inspiring and intimidating all at the sametime! Although I aspire to fight for the health and good of people till the end, we really do not know what the work is going to look like a 5, 10, 30 years. With this thought we need to make sure we are always on our game, and stay connected with other professionals!
BKies, could you send me that link, I could not get it to work with copy and past?
Dr. Jecklin has brought up a great point from Alyson's presentation, are there reliable sources out there for us to look at? As future public health workers it is our duty to make sure that sources we utilize are checked and rechecked by us. Reading the book scares to think what we will deal with when we pursue our different careers, or what our kids will have to deal with.
ReplyDeleteAnd with this Shelby Amendment, in my opinion it is wrong, and its just another politician trying to push his way through the system. Which is why I do not like dealing with politicians or their work, especially the ones on capital hill.
I think we are living in a complicative society. In this postmodern era, it is difficult to define the right or wrong just depends on what we saw or read. Media was created to reveal the fact and trasfer information, however, it also facilitate to spread the mind of government or business. I think it is inevitable to happen these situation especially media is one kind of business. Institutionalization of Uncertainty is really a smart idea to regulate the information spread. However, it is difficult because it is "uncertainty" at the first beginning. As long as the idea is uncertain, it is also difficult for media to confirm what they are going to promote is close to the fact or cover the fact. I think the responsibility still need to return to the researchers. If our society can judge the result of a reasearch or study fairly. Do not ignore a bad result or fail research, I think more and more people will be brave to concede the bad consequence in sciense.
ReplyDeleteI have a question, we think those laws(Shelby Act) is wrong,how about, maybe 20year later, how do descendants think about the law we have now? The same opinion as we do? The knowledge and understanding of the world are growing up with time goes. I agree with Paula, even we are fighting again these superpower company without successful chance. The awareness is needed and important. Maybe that is the part we should study on, the policy making is a significant part for health promotion. Alyson, thanks for rising up this topic.
ReplyDeleteI guess I was unaware an individual could put a "hold" on Congress as they pleased, and maybe I still don't understand it fully. However, excellent insight is it really the entire group or government or a few key people with a lot of resources and connections to get what they want? I also was naive in thinking that the Shelby ammendment had its good points, but now I see the real agenda behind it. Nice presentation!
ReplyDeleteThis issue makes we want to continue to educate myself on these topics, so I am aware of how our system works unethically. Maybe if more citizens were aware of these topics, such as the Shelby amendment and DQA we wouldn't be facing to challenge of discerning truth.
ReplyDeleteI agree my Dr. Jecklin quote:
"Your era requires intellectual fitness made up of strength of character, the suppleness of an open mind, the skills of a critical thinker, and the hearty endurance of a Jimmy Carter and others who actively pursue truth and justice til the day they die. The only excuse for retiring one's mind today is dementia".
The argument over why the United States of Corporate America continues to be such a strong influence on environmental and public health issues can be linked to financial gain, mostly. Big Tobacco, in this case, was a major player in the early ears of our country. As time passed it's financial foundation grew stronger, and it's legal acuity dug even deeper into the roots our nation's core.
ReplyDeleteAnd as new ammendments and acts were passed, loopholes were found by some of the brightest attorneys MONEY could buy. And with the 'uncertainty creation' came a cycle of confusion over whose freedoms are being imposed upon, whether it's private or public. Big Tobacco was and still is able to use this to it's advantage. By finding ways to infuence lawmakers, i.e. bribery and loopholes, we will continue to be a voice less heard. When money talks, it becomes hard not to listen.
It is apparent that a new approach in passing and enforcing regulations will be required, but with government spending at an all time high and our debt as deep as ever, we have a very steep hill to climb before we ever reach the top.
What an eye opener this chater has been! To think that the witholding of such information pertaining to the products that we as consumers intake, I believe, puts our health in jeopardy. Furthermore, the trust that we have in our government to allow something such as this should put their honesty in jeopardy as well. I mean at this very moment our country is trying to initaiate a new Health Care Reform when, at the same time, something as this, that affects our health is going on. How can that happen? One man, Richard Shelby caused such a movement and act, the Data Quality Act, all by the power of the almighty dollar. It makes me think that if one man such as him can gain such support in something that puts our health at stake, why can't we act against it and prove that our well being is worth more than any monetary value.
ReplyDelete