Chapter 14 The Institutionalization of Uncertainty

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..........................