Essay Title: 

The Integrity of Science in Public Policy

March 24, 2016 | Author: | Posted in law

Nondisclosure policies of private companies that sponsor scientific research prevent researchers from disclosing their relationship with the sponsor . By barring researchers from disclosing these ties , aren ‘t sponsors guilty of information fraud ? Should they be prosecuted for potentially endangering lives by presenting agenda-driven , subjective reports as independent and objective

According to David Michaels and Wendy Wagner , disclosure of conflicts of interest should be required for all research , regardless of whether it is federally or privately funded . Scientists should disclose whether they have a contractual right to publish their findings free of [banner_entry_middle]

sponsor control and should identify the extent to which their work was reviewed by an affected party before publication or submission to the agency How can this be achieved without compromising the rights of the sponsor to not disclose information that they do not wish to ? If the private sponsors were required to divulge all information required by regulation laws , would this create an unfavorable environment for sponsors ? Would these regulations cause sponsors to be discouraged form finding research in the future

David Michaels and Wendy Wagner also say , Regulators should not use conflict disclosures to exclude research they have the obligation to consider all evidence ‘ How much credibility does this sort of research have left when it is revealed that there might be come conflict of interest involved ? When such a finding is opposed by an independent report (even if it is low standard , would it – should it – automatically be considered invalid , or would still have some significance

Daubert v Merrell-Dow (1993 ) set new guidelines for federal judges to use in deciding whether expert scientific testimony should be allowed in particular tort cases . Does not giving the courts the power to decide on the validity of scientific testimony to be applicable in court , defeat the purpose of not having a sole authority validate or invalidate a scientific finding ? If one court were to invalidate a finding , would it then stand invalidated universally , without the possibility of future review for other cases

The major guidelines set by Daubert v Merrell-Dow (1993 ) were (1 whether the theory or technique can be , and has been tested (2 ) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review and publication (3 ) the known or potential error rate associated with application of the theory and (4 ) the general acceptance of the theory or technique in question Doesn ‘t this exclude theories that cannot be tested , even if they are theoretically sound and irrefutable ? According to these criteria , only theories and techniques that generally well-accepted are to be allowed in court . Do the courts restrict the scope of their judgments by not recommending precautions based on theories – such as Global Warming – that are debatable in the scientific and political arenas

Pat Michaels is a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia and the resident climate-change expert at the Cato Institute , a free-market think tank that receives money from ExxonMobil Michaels made headlines across the U .S . when ABC News and the Associated Press… [banner_entry_footer]

Comments Off on The Integrity of Science in Public Policy


This author has published 9190 articles so far. More info about the author is coming soon.

Comments are closed.