Along the lines of trying to combat fraud and corruption in scientific research, these GEITP pages from time to time have shared news on this complex subject. Yes, there is a fine line between science and politics –– when one is dealing with attempts to establish governmental policy based on questionable scientific conclusions. These GEITP pages have tried hard to focus on the SCIENCE and stay away from the politics.
A number of times these GEITP pages have covered the topic of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model –– pushed forward with insufficient scientific evidence (and amidst the objection of many solid scientists of those days) in the 1940s-50s. The conclusion has then led to more than six decades of questionable “cancer” and “toxicity” research, funded by billions of taxpayer US dollars to pay for massive projects, and a great deal of time and experimental effort. I see that the LNT Model is specifically mentioned on pages 9 and 25.
The [attached] report proposes a regulation intended to strengthen the transparency of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory science. When EPA develops regulations –– including regulations for which the public is likely to bear the cost of compliance, with regard to those scientific studies that are pivotal to the action being taken –– the document suggests that the EPA should ensure that the data underlying those are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation. The EPA is now requesting comments on this proposal, in order to determine how best this policy can be disseminated and implemented in light of existing laws and prior Federal policies. This same issue of “reproducibility” and “transparency” in the past several years has also become increasingly important in the publication of articles in top-rate scientific journals.