EPA has a long history of relying on science that was not created by the agency itself. This often means that the science is not available to the public and, therefore, cannot be reproduced and verified.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The public impression is that the government, industry or the highest bidder can buy a scientist to add credibility to any message. That crucial quality of impartiality is being lost.
I cannot understand for the life of me why DOE is going forward with this licensing procedure when we do not know whether or not the scientific documentation upon which you are basing your decisions is, in fact, flawed.
The position I took at the time was that we hadn't really examined any of the potential environmental consequences of introducing genetically modified organisms.
Scientists surely have a special responsibility. It is their ideas that form the basis of new technology. They should not be indifferent to the fruits of their ideas. They should forgo experiments that are risky or unethical.
Some of the FDA's own scientists have charged that politics, not science, is behind the FDA's actions.
The fruits of science and innovation have nourished our society and economy for years, but nations unable to navigate our regulatory system are often excluded, as are vulnerable individuals.
Individual scientists cannot do much on their own. Heads of nations, corporates, and economic giants should recognise the criticality of it.
Of course, not everybody's willing to go out and do the experiments, but for the people who are willing to go out and do that, - if the experiments don't work, then it means it's not science.
There cannot be any impediment to science that will ultimately be good to the general public.
Science does not permit exceptions.