The EPA, and the application of the Joshua Principle. . .

On my first readings of various articles detailing the EPA's Pruitt and his decision regarding researchers on advisory panels, I basically arrived at asking WTF? Scott Pruitt at the EPA several weeks ago announced that Scientists must now decide if they want to serve on an advisory board or do grant driven research, much of those grants from the EPA. They can no longer do both. Historically, they have been able to do both. Their removal from these panels will most likely allow for industry representatives to fill those roles. Pruitt wants industry and local groups to participate, but scientists and researchers have no seat at that table. Most articles point to the idea that a scientist or researcher's offerings are tainted as their funding is often coming from the EPA. It is interesting that the other groups are perceived as having no dog in this race. Local representatives and industry representatives seem to have no interest, no conflicts. So we have industry folks having a greater say on how the EPA proceeds. It appears that there is no conflict of interest in their case, despite the fact that it is industry which is typically regulated by the EPA. Strange. Now I have some strong opinions on the above. I may also actually believe industry reps do deserve a seat at the table along with researchers and local folks, but lets hold that thought. Pruitt uses a bible verse to introduce this subject. A bible verse, what is referenced as the Joshua Principle, which involves the Israelites being asked to choose between the true God or the idols they had come to embrace. Pruitt is demanding that scientists choose between grant funded research or advisory panel. Which is your god? Is it science or advisory panel? One is the true God and one is a false idol? And this is part crazy, but also part interesting. We do put scientific researchers in a privileged class. We do. They know the science. They know the truth. Are scientific researchers entitled to this privileged place. Is it appropriate that they be perceived as without bias? Or forget bias for the moment. Is it the case that their knowledge actually does grant them access to the table? They have no personal interest in this matter. They have neither a horse nor a dog in this race. They have no stake in this game. They only have a rational offering - their research. The industry rep wants his industry to thrive, and the local representatives wants their region to likewise thrive. The researcher is not interested in either of these. He or she can only offer the conclusions of his research. He has knowledge, and the others have goals and intentions. Perhaps it is not bias that is at issue, but rather that science is a false idol. It distracts us from what is in front of us. Its truths do not allow us to move or improve our lives, but only consume us with further research. Science has imposed itself between the local and industry reps who desire to push and advance their causes, the groups and the people in those groups. To remove scientific researchers from the table seems a mistake. If they are not there, how is their research introduced? Obviously, all want to make an informed decision, which entails the latest research on the matter at hand. And to simply replace them with industry representatives is craven. Now, this piece really requires more knowledge of these panels. Much of this is speculative, but at first blush we not only have the issue of bias to consider, but also the nexus of knowledge, policy, and life. How does the later work? It is possible that we are focused too much on knowledge, science and research? Yet, to totally deny a place at the table for science is just as problematic.