The Coming Wave Of Space Policy Advisory Changes
Trump officials act to tilt federal science boards toward industry, Nature
“Legally, there is nothing to stop the Trump administration from appointing anybody it likes to agency science boards. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which governs most of them, does not spell out qualifications for membership. (Some committees such as the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee are governed by their own statutes with stricter service rules.) “All FACA says is you need ‘balanced representation’. It says nothing about conflicts of interest or scientific integrity,” Wagner says. “If you wanted science advisory boards stripped down, with minimal constraints, anything goes, legally you could do that.”
EPA dismisses half of key board’s scientific advisers; Interior suspends more than 200 advisory panels, Washington Post
“Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department are overhauling a slew of outside advisory boards that inform how their agencies assess the science underpinning policies, the first step in a broader effort by Republicans to change the way the federal government evaluates the scientific basis for its regulations. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt decided to replace half of the members on one of its key scientific review boards, while Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is “reviewing the charter and charge” of more than 200 advisory boards, committees and other entities both within and outside his department. EPA and Interior officials began informing current members of the move Friday, and notifications continued over the weekend.”
Keith’s note: Of course, this purge will eventually reach NASA as well – starting with the NASA Advisory Council. Stay tuned.
It might not be too bad in NASA’s case. NASA has a much more bipartisan consensus on what its missions and programs ought to be.
…or rather…more bipartisan consensus about “what its missions and programs” need to fantasize about, as other pork that’s unrelated is funded.
Also NASA is not involved in any regulation. The changes are being made to provide broader input into agencies that are involved in regulation.
I believe that is one of the differences between an “agency” and an “administration.”
There is no difference other than name. NASA is referred to as a “cabinet level agency” many times. NASA refers to itself as “the agency”.
I’ve recently been reading some histories of the early years of the space program. One author pointed out that there is a difference between an agency and an administration, and that NASA was originally proposed as an agency. Someone thought there was enough of a difference to make a change.
As for being cabinet level, does the head of NASA attend all cabinet meetings (schedule permitting), or only if he is invited? Whatever words people use, that is a key distinction.
Not true; changes are being made to move away from best science and evidence-based decision making, towards those controlled by for-profit entities regardless of evidence.
So you don’t think the firms being regulated should have any representation? That is should just be “impartial” experts that have only “theory” and no experience to base decisions on?
Personally I can’t wait until the EPA is rolled back and we can actually have rivers again that you light with a match … no more having to carry pesky fluid to lite your charcoal when you are out camping .. just scoop of a cup of water from the river and dump it on your charcoal.
Yep. And those pointy-headed and over-priced so-called ‘scientists’ on the advisory boards? What the hell do they know about the REAL world, anyway? Get some folks in there not afraid to get their hands dirty.
https://www.facebook.com/AT…
Yes, American coal mined by American workers powering the nation 24/7 with low electricity rates versus government subsidized solar panels imported from China providing day time only electricity at much higher rates. Yes, a good illustration of the policy shift.
Coal is not subsidized and has never been? Come on that is crazy talk .. ALL energy gets subsidies in one form or another. How many are working mining coal today and now many are working in solar?
And solar rates would not come down, as an economist I am surprised you would even point at that… we know what happens to prices as more and more factories come online producing panels.
Except those are foreign jobs, since the Chinese have proved very good at under cutting U.S. firms on solar panels. So those reduction of rates come at the expense of American workers. That is why President Trump was elected, to put Americans back to work.
The NAC is already being reorganize, to some extent. The science-related subcommittees are being restructured to give them a more formal, legal status and to interface with NASA management at a lower level. (Previously, their reports went up the chain to the NAC, over to NASA at the deputy director level and then back down.) If you want the details, Jim Green reported it at the last OPAG meeting, and I think his presentation is on their web page. It might be worth looking at the composition of the new Earth science committee, once they are appointed. The reorganization has been, so far, been described as simply improving efficiency and communications.
All of that is irrelevant if the Trumpsters want to change things. Besides, the NAC and its subcommittees are always reorganizing since that is easier to do than what they are chartered to do.
I was most interested in this reorganization because it adds legal constraints on membership to the lower-level groups. Formal conflict of interest rules now apply at the level of previously unaffected subcommittees and mission science definition teams.
I think we have another case of “Both may be true…” (but don’t say so or both camps will cry for your head):
— I think it is fair to be concerned that advisors that are not favored by the Administration may be let go so as to skew the “advice” given to the Agencies. We must always fight to get the right answers, not just the ones we want to hear.
— I think it is fair to be concerned that Government bureaucracies are spending too much money on thousands of advisors. Can the fat be trimmed to be able to spend that more effectively on what the Agencies are supposed to be doing? According the EPA Administrator, that Agency _alone_ has “more than 200 advisory boards, committees and other entities….” How many of those are redundant committees, nepotistic appointments of friends and family, or analysts paid for work will never be read by anyone?
For the most part the members are not employees and the money they receive may only be for expenses. Getting rid of the advisors will leave the political appointees free to say whatever the administration wants.