Deep Confusion About DEP Science Board

[Update below]

I’ve been closely following and writing about the new DEP Science Advisory Board (SAB) – including filing a successful lawsuit against DEP – so I was rather surprised by the basic misunderstandings and deep confusion revealed in a story by Mike Miller of the Atlantic City Press:  State DEP advisory panel a mix of science, industry experts

Miller is a good reporter, so the source of the problem is in his sources, not his reporting.  So let’s take a closer look at  just some of the more egregious falsehoods and spin in that story.

On a positive note, it was refereshing to see a scientist honestly acknowledge a major problem, which is the irresponsible reluctance of scientists to enter the public debate on scientific issues, even when those issues are being distorted. Most scientists have hidden behind the protective facade of so called detached science, and that abdication has allowed industry and political hacks to fill the void and manipulate public debate (see “Doubt is Their Product“). Miller writes:

[Rutgers professor and Chair Judith] Weis said people have become more distrustful about science, sometimes because nonscientists have a louder voice when it comes to factious issues such as climate change.

“I suppose the public has. People like Rush Limbaugh have better PR skills than the scientific community. Most scientists would prefer just to do their own research and not get involved in the public arena,” she said.

Thank you professor Weiss – and I hope you continue to have the same integrity in calling out industry scientists on the SAB as you do with Rush Limbaugh.

But from that high note, the story goes steeply downhill and reveals remarkable ignorance and/or deceit. I’ll take them in order.

1. The Business and Industry Association lobbyist quote is set up by a question of whether DEP is “cherry picking data”. NJBIA is portrayed as a “critic” who “often questions the scientific rationale behind regulations”.

“The DEP has had the ability to cherry-pick scientific data and use the most conservative standards as they see fit,” said David Brogan, vice president for environmental policy at the New Jersey Business and Industry Association. “Having more people with scientific backgrounds gathering data and using other resources will only help to get a fair and balanced approach to rulemaking.”

Personally, I like Dave Brogan, but he’s no scientist. Brogan is a lobbyist who is well paid to spin and represent the economic interests of his members. For him to call for “fair and balanced” DEP rulemaking is no different than the Fox News and Rush Limbaugh version.  As such, Brogan is a perfect example of exactly the PR problem Weiss correctly targeted.

Substantively, Brogan has managed to conflate and confuse a host of distinct issues. He blends issues of 1) credible quality assured data, to 2) data interpretation, to 3) necessary assumptions that always are required in the absence of data and knowledge, 4) to regulatory policy (which is a blend of science and law), and 5) to the legal and institutional issue of regulatory standards.

As Brogan is well aware, there is a huge controversy now raging in the legislature about DEP standards, how standards are set, and whether DEP or the legislature should set them.  Industry lobbyists are seeking to strip DEP of the power to set any standards that are stricter than federal minimums, which would gut NJ’s public health and environmental protections, which have long been – and virtually across the board –  far more stringent than federal minimums.

Brogan is using the SAB to advance that agenda. And The Governor and DEP Commissioner Martin are backing them. This all has zero to do with science and almost everything to do with politics and economics.

Brogan also knows that the SAB explicitly is NOT authorized to consider regulatory issues, under the Administrative Orders that created the SAB.

2. The Builders Association spokesperson repeats Brogan’s mistake on the SAB role in rulemaking, and talks about bringing scientific credibility to DEP regulations.

After getting a chuckle about the Builders and scientific credibility in the same sentence, let’s state the obvious: a) the Builders want to build, everywhere, in a way that maximizes profits; b) DEP and environmental laws sometimes limit how much they can build or impose additional costs on construction that reduces their profits; and c) ergo: this has zero to do with science, and everything to do with land use and economics and political power.

3. The Dupont’s representative on the SAB is identified as a “microbiologist”. But Dr. Gannon does not practice microbiology at Dupont – he is a high level manger and head of Dupont’s global corporate strategy on environmental compliance.

I assure you, Gannon was not appointed to the SAB for his microbiological work and he will not do any microbiology on the SAB.

He is on the SAB to represent Dupont’s strategic corporate interests. Period.

And Dupont’s interests in DEP science involve BILLIONS of dollars in NJ liability, as well as BILLIONS more globally as NJ’s scientific work on Dupont toxic pollutants (like PFOA) is used in regulatory work by other states, EPA, and internationally.

4. Which brings us to serious questions about scientific bias and conflicts of interest (they are two different things).

The Order that created the SAB has vague restrictions on both. However, DEP failed to apply those restrictions in screening and selecting SAB members.

In response to our criticisms, these original restrictions were allegedly tightened in June, but only AFTER the SAB members were already selected.

Now that DEP appointed the SAB, they continue to fail to enforce and implement any ethical restrictions. Instead, DEP has left that all up to the integrity of individual scientists to determine on a case by case basis.

Dupont has inherent bias and deep conflicts of interest, so they never should have been selected on the SAB. And note that it is Mr Gannon who will decide when and if to recuse himself, not DEP or an independent ethics body:

DuPont’s Gannon said the board has a broad membership and strict guidelines about conflicts of interest to prevent industry or political bias. For example, he would abstain from issues that directly affect his business, he said.

In their board applications, several Rutgers professors recognized potential conflicts, namely that their institution or colleagues receive DEP grants for their research.

Earth to Miller: even with a conflict, there is a huge difference between a Rutgers academic scientist and one that works for a major corporate polluter like Dupont. Hello!

5. Under the Order that created the SAB, the DEP Commissioner sets the SAB’s issues agenda. The SAB does not select the issues they will work on.

Virtually every source to the story got this basic and important issue very wrong. The SAB is not the forum to debate priorities and select pet issues.

Rutgers scientist Mark Robson, who recently resigned in frustration as head of the NJ Drinking Water Quality Institute, reveals his ignorance on this issue:

“I don’t know if we’re going to start with air, water, soil or food,” Robson said. “My impression is that what will be on the table is the science behind the entire suite of things under the DEP’s purview.

The SAB will start when DEP asks them to and work on what DEP asks them to. Period.

But worse, DEP spokesperson inadvertently reveals that DEP has no scientific priorities and no science agenda, in this killer quote from the DEP press office:

“They’re [the SAB] on call for any issue that comes up.”

Any issue that just randomly comes up? Right.

And the token “environmentalist” (who chairs a Standing Committee, and is not on the full SAB) also just doesn’t understand his own role, the role of his Committee, or the SAB and DEP’s role:

Board member Emile DeVito, director of science for the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, said he is considering calling his own meeting of the ecological subcommittee he chairs.

DeVito, a trustee for the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, is studying rare plants in the Pine Barrens of Ocean County this month.

“I would like to bring questions to the table rather than allow the political agenda bring issues to the table,” he said.

“One key issue I see on the horizon is if people will focus on solar power, what habitats and land areas do we cover up? There are already 5 square miles of applications to cover up farms with solar panels,” DeVito said. “It would be nice if we could put them in built environments instead of sacrificing natural areas or farms.”

Sorry  Emile, you don’t bring any issues to the table. The issues are assigned to you by the SAB Chair, who gets his assignments from the DEP Commissioner. Read the Order, please. (and we agree with DeVito that soil compaction is a huge problem, but the data suggest its not caused by solar panels. And we also agree that South Jersey’s farms are threatened, but, again, the data show that the threat is not from solar panels. Which prompts the obvious question: why are real causes ignored while solar gets focus?).

[Update: upon reflection, it is actually worse for Devito to raise pet solar/farm preservation issues on which he has both bias and conflicts of interest, than for Gannon of Dupont to raise PFOA. At least PFOA is a legitimate scientific issue.]

And DeVito – similar to Brogan – illustrates an ignorance of the difference between science and policy. The issues involved with locating solar facilities “in built environments” instead of “sacrificing farmlands” (is that a scientific journal term?) is an energy and land use legal and policy issue. It has very little to do with science. And the science issues are subordinate to the legal and policy framework.

This is embarrassing and shocking, that these fundamental distinctions are just ignored – and by our “best and brighest”, no less.

7. So let’s close where the AC Press story closes – my arrogance meter is pinned:

“The public can’t tell the difference between science and a smokescreen,” he said. “The advisory board can sift out what’s real science.”

No further comment on that. Maybe, just maybe, this is why “the public” resents environmentalists and why the corporations are so successful in manipulating public opinion to create a backlash against “elites”.

[UPDATE: 7/25/10 – I missed this AC Press editotrial when it ran on June 28: DEP’s new science advisory board / Noble goal. While I like the fact that it bluntly calls out Jeff Tittel for his spin,  it repeats the same errors and misunderstandings from the news story, concluding with this over the top error:

A scientific advisory board made up solely of members of the environmental community would speak with little authority”

Where on earth did editors get that false understanding? For the record, the SAB has no, none, zero, nada “members of the envrionmental community” – there is one on a Subcommittee. But the SAB is packed with 6 industry reps or industry consultants.

Basing an editorial on misinformation surely missed the key issues, one of which is this inconvenient truth:

3. The Dupont’s representative on the SAB is identified as a “microbiologist”. But Dr. Gannon does not practice microbiology at Dupont “ he is a high level manger and head of Dupont’s global corporate strategy on environmental compliance.

I assure you, Gannon was not appointed to the SAB for his microbiological work and he will not do any microbiology on the SAB.

He is on the SAB to represent Dupont’s strategic corporate interests. Period. And Dupont’s interests in DEP science involve BILLIONS of dollars in NJ liability, as well as BILLIONS more globally as NJ’s scientific work on Dupont toxic pollutants (like PFOA) is used in regulatory work by other states, EPA, and internationally.

Like I said – garbage in – garbage out – in this case, bad sources. ~~~ end update]