Skip to content

Biased Scientific Appraisals

January 22, 2013

There is an obsession among environmentalists that experts from corporations shouldn’t be involved with studies pertaining to energy issues.

The corollary is the view that information is automatically tainted if it is developed by organizations who have received corporate money.

The underlying common denominator is the view that a conflict of interest exists whenever corporations are involved.

The opposite holds true when environmentalists are appointed to technical review panels – it’s automatically assumed they have no conflict of interest.

Invariably this myopic approach results in one-sided, frequently biased conclusions.

Probably the most technically knowledgeable people are employed by corporations. They are not only conversant with the theory surrounding an issue, but also with the many practical complexities that exist in the real world where technologies are applied.

By excluding the experts employed by corporations, the country is denied the benefit of their wealth of knowledge and experience.

There is also the implied accusation that these “industry” experts will sully their souls by lying or distorting facts to protect their employer.

A recent example of this myopic process is the 2010 EPA study on fracking that was reviewed by a 22-member scientific advisory board that excluded people with industry experience.

Fracking is an issue of monumental importance to the people of the United States, and Americans were denied the benefit of those who were most knowledgeable about the subject.

The U.S. House Space, Science and Technology Committee has recently requested that the EPA review its selection process for members of the scientific advisory board that will conduct the review of the latest fracking study.

Shouldn’t there be a fair representation of industry experts on a scientific advisory board that has 22 or more people?

Even if the representation were evenly split between members from the EPA, members from environmental organizations, members from Universities and members from industry, the panel would still, most likely, be skewed toward environmentalists.

The importance of even a minority shouldn’t be discounted, because the minority can issue a report explaining why they differ from the majority. In this manner, Americans can obtain a fair analysis of the matter being studied.

In a broader context, Americans need to disabuse environmentalists of the notion that industry experts are charlatans who put their selfish interests above that of the country’s.

This is important because Americans deserve to have the benefit of the knowledge and experience of all experts.

*  *  *  *  *  *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

*  *  *  *  *  *

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. Prefer to Notsharename permalink
    January 26, 2013 2:28 pm

    you are very right. And here is an example of a talented expert employed by the industry voicing a minority opinion.

    • January 27, 2013 9:09 am

      If your intent is to demean industry spokesmen, that’s your right.
      It’s unfortunate you take this approach, using an emotionally charged issue, to attack industry experts.
      I remain convinced that Americans are smart enough to sort out the accurate from the non-scientifically based comments.
      We would all benefit, especially when it comes to energy issues, to have industry experts involved in the formation of policy.
      Thanks for your comment.

  2. neilfutureboy permalink
    January 28, 2013 8:51 am

    Where nothing else is known the public record for accuraqcy of the organisation making the claims is vital.

    For example when Greenpeace ran a maqjor campiagn against BP scuttling an old oil platform becuase Greenpeace claimed PCBs would be released it turned out they had overstated the figure for PCBs 1,000 fold & BP had got it right.

    Unless somebody can find a case that goesw the opposite way the defualt assumption should be that the oil company is around 1,000 times more likely to be telling the truth.

    Obama, of course, having said that sea levels are rising fast but that he will stop them, does not approach the credibility level of Greenpeace.


  1. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s