Will Elizabeth Warren's Stance against "Junk Science" Matter to Voters?

[BlueMTexpat]

The presidential candidate wants new limits on government use of biased studies pushed by industry

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-elizabeth-warrens-stance-against-junk-science-matter-to-voters/

... Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, has come out with a proposal to keep so-called junk science, supported by industry, out of federal policy decisions. Many scientists have pointed out that misleading research and evidence, raised to new prominence under the Trump administration, has led to environmental and health policies that endanger the public. Other candidates have not spoken so directly about science policy, and the coming week may tell whether Warren’s approach resonates with people in a bellwether state.

Warren’s plan would ban federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency from using non-peer-reviewed industry-funded science to determine regulations if any conflicts of interest exist. She would bar courts from considering such research in challenges to federal rules. Warren also wants a law to give these policies some teeth: it would punish industry representatives with up to $250,000 in fines or jail time if they knowingly submitted comments with false or fraudulent information.

“Warren’s proposal is good,” says Robert Proctor, a science historian at Stanford University. “We should have better reliability checks on science introduced into regulations and court testimony. As it is now, there’s a lot of fraudulent science being put forward. That’s a big scandal.” But he also notes that simply relying on anything termed peer review as a stamp of approval is not enough, because companies have gamed that system, so the proposal needs a better yardstick. In addition, significant amounts of industry-supported research are legitimate and valuable. Scientific American contacted 20 industry groups, including oil and chemical producers and pharmaceutical manufacturers, to to ask for reactions to Warren’s plan. All declined to comment or did not respond.

Scientific associations and watchdog groups have criticized the Trump administration for carrying out a “war on science” over the past three years. Such organizations say that research findings have been manipulated for political gain and the benefit of fossil-fuel industries; federal scientists have been targeted for ideological reasons; and safeguards meant to ensure the objectivity of government research have been weakened. For example, in the fall of 2019, the Trump administration proposed a rule that would limit medical and scientific research used by the EPA by eliminating studies from consideration if they did not disclose confidential medical records. Such studies underlie the conclusion that air pollution is harmful to people. The rule was criticized by the agency’s own science advisory board, which includes industry consultants, as well as academic scientists. In a draft report released on December 31, 2019, the panel stated that such a restriction “may not add transparency, and even may make some kinds of research more difficult.” Other observers go further and note the rule is an attempt to dismantle basic health protections and to justify fewer pollution regulations.

Under Warren’s proposal, anyone who submits a comment to a public agency that cites research that is not found in a public peer-reviewed journal must disclose the sources of funding for that research, as well as editorial control of the publication in which the study appeared and any fiscal relationships between its authors and industry. If more than 20 percent of a paper’s funding came from a regulated entity, and if that entity exercised editorial control over the research, it would constitute a conflict of interest and be disallowed, according to Saloni Sharma, national deputy press secretary for Warren’s campaign.
...

***************
Warren always has her eye on the ball, despite all the distractions. I truly hope that voters are paying attention.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Good for her. I hope she isn't going after *only* industry-funded science, though.

I hope the target includes junk science that masquerades as real science - all kinds of fake cures, all kinds of crap that isn't peer-reviewed, regardless of its source.

[mopinko]

2. she gets to the root of things. that is exactly what we need.

too many focus on the end of a problem, she looks at the beginning.

she had me in the palm of her hand when she came out w the plan on infant/maternal mortality.

[blm]

5. 👍🏽

[bucolic_frolic]

3. She could fix anything

but voters don't understand the details of what she's trying to fix. She needs a catchy slogan as well as policy wonkishness.

"Government by corruption isn't working"

[BlueMTexpat]

6. Good suggestion!

Hope that her campaign at least considers it!

[blm]

4. Warren is for actionable progress over rhetoric.

She is the only candidate who has ever succeeded in building an entire agency from ground up, and did it for the PEOPLE not the corporate elites with their claws in every department.