>>> IF YOU PERSONALLY WERE CALLED UPON TO STAND UP TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR A BRAND-NEW FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATION IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, YOU COULD SCARCELY
COME TO THAT MOMENT WITH A BETTER GOD-GIVEN NAME.
>> MY NAME IS DEB SWAKHAMMER AND I'M A FORMER PROFESSOR FROM THE
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA. >> SWAKHAMMER.
YOU HEARD HER RIGHT. SCIENTIST DEBORAH SWAKHAMMER
APPEARED BEFORE CONGRESS LAST MONTH TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE NEED
FOR ROBUST AND INDEPENDENT SCIENCE AND MAKING GOVERNMENTAL
DECISIONS ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
PROFESSOR SWAKHAMMER WAS THERE TO GIVE BASICALLY A WARNING
ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF POLITICIZING AND MARGINALIZING
SCIENCE WITHIN THE EPA. DOWN TO THAT HOLLOWING OUT OF
ACADEMIC SCIENTISTS ON THE EPA BOARD THAT SHE CHAIRS.
WE NOW KNOW THAT BEHIND THE SCENES, THE EPA WAS TRYING TO
GET HER TO CHANGE HER TESTIMONY SO SHE WOULD BE MORE IN LINE
WITH AGENCY TALKING POINTS. PROFESSOR SWAKHAMMER RESPONDED,
QUOTE, MY TESTIMONY IS SUBMITTED AND EMBARGOED.
I ASSURE YOU MY MAIN MESSAGE IS MINE, MINE, MINE ALONE, AND IT
IS THAT STRONG SCIENCE IS NEEDED TO ENSURE PUBLIC HEALTH.
AND THEN SCIENTIST DEBORAH SWAKHAMMER WENT TO CAPITOL HILL
EXACTLY AS SHE PROMISED SHE WOULD, AND SHE DELIVERED HER
TESTIMONY DESPITE THAT PRESSURE. JOINING US NOW FOR THE INTERVIEW
TONIGHT IS DEBORAH SWAKHAMMER. SHE'S PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA.
PROFESSOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. >> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> YOU ARE CURRENTLY CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF SCIENTIFIC
COUNSELORS AT THE EPA. >> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THAT BOARD?
>> THIS BOARD REPORTS TO THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AT EPA, AND WE GUIDE THE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR IN THE RESEARCH THAT'S DONE INTERNALLY AT EPA.
>> OKAY. >> SO IT'S ALL ABOUT JUST WHAT'S
GOING ON IN EPA. WE DON'T DEAL WITH REGULATIONS.
WE DON'T DEAL WITH POLICY. WE'RE DEALING WITH KIND OF THE
BASIC SCIENCE THAT'S GOING INTO EVENTUALLY MAYBE TO SUPPORT
REGULATIONS. BUT WE'RE OVERSEEING THAT
SCIENCE AND GIVING ADVICE ON IS IT THE RIGHT SCIENCE?
ARE THEY DOING IT WITH THE BEST METHODOLOGY?
IS IT, YOU KNOW, THE GOLD STANDARD?
IS IT GOING TO WITHSTAND SCRUTINY WHEN IT GOES --
>> SO YOU'RE HELPING THE DECISION MAKERS, THE ACTIVE
DECISION MAKERS AT EPA MAKE SENSE OF AND UNDERSTAND THE
IMPORT AND THE SOLIDITY OF THE SCIENCE THAT'S GOING INTO EPA
DECISIONS? >> AND IT'S EVEN A LITTLE
FURTHER UPSTREAM THAN THAT. IS IT GOOD SCIENCE?
IS IT THE RIGHT SCIENCE? >> WHAT IS THE STATE OF THAT
BOARD NOW? >> WELL, MANY OF THE -- MOST OF
THE MEMBERS HAVE BEEN TOLD THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE CONTINUED
INTO A SECOND TERM, AND SO THE BOARD THAT USED TO BE ABOUT 68
MEMBERS IS NOW GOING TO END UP BEING 11 MEMBERS AS OF SEPTEMBER
1 BECAUSE SO MANY OF THOSE MEMBERS WERE GOING TO HAVE THE
FIRST TERM RENEWAL, BUT NOW THOSE MEMBERS AREN'T GOING TO
HAVE A FIRST TERM RENEWAL. SO BASICALLY THE BOARD HAS BEEN
KIND OF DECIMATED. >> MM-HMM.
>> AND OUR ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN ESSENTIALLY SUSPENDED.
WE'RE SORT OF IN SUSPENDED ANIMATION BECAUSE ALL OF OUR
FUTURE MEETINGS HAVE ALSO BEEN CANCELED.
>> ALL OF YOUR FUTURE MEETINGS? >> YES.
WE HAD SIX SCHEDULED IN THE FALL, AND THEN WE WERE IN THE
PROCESS OF DECIDING HOW THOSE -- WHAT THE AGENDAS WERE GOING TO
BE AND HOW THOSE MEETINGS WERE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND THEY ALL WERE CANCELED BECAUSE THERE ARE NO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS TO ATTEND THEM. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH WARM BODIES
TO KEEP BOSC GOING. >> GIVEN WHAT THE ROLE OF THIS
BOARD IS, WHICH SEEMS CRUCIAL WHEN YOU DESCRIBE IT IN THE
TERMS YOU JUST SKRISHED IT, IS IT YOUR SENSE THAT EPA IS
REPLACING THE ROLE OF THIS THIS SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD WITH
SOMETHING ELSE? ARE THEY GETTING ADVICE ON HOW
TO INTERPRET SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS AND SCIENTIFIC WORK AND THE
SCIENCE DONE WITHIN THE EPA FROM PEOPLE OTHER THAN THE SCIENTISTS
WHO USED TO DO IT. >> JONG HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE
DOING THAT UNLESS THEY'RE DOING IT INTERNALLY.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE REALLY GOOD SCIENCE TO SUPPORT STRONG
REGULATIONS BECAUSE YOU GO TO COURT AND HAVE TO HAVE ROBUST
SCIENCE IN ORDER TO WITHSTAND THAT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE PEER
REVIEW OF THAT SCIENCE. SO YOU DO THE SCIENCE, AND THEN
I LOOK AT IT AS AN OUTSIDER, AND I SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD HAVE
TWEAKED THIS, OR MAYBE YOU WANT TO DO THAT, OR YOU DIDN'T
INCLUDE THIS STUDY AND YOU SHOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW.
THEN YOU'RE GETTING THAT OUTSIDE REVIEW, A FRESH SET OF EYES, AN
OBJECTIVE REVIEW. WITHOUT THAT, YOU CAN REALLY GO
ASTRAY. YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE STRONG
SCIENCE. SO EPA IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO
DO SCIENCE, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT REALLY STRONG
OUTSIDE, INDEPENDENT VIEWPOINT FOR SOME TIME BECAUSE BOSC, IT'S
GOING TO TAKE THEM SIX TO NINE MONTHS TO PROBABLY GET THAT
REPOPULATED, GET NEW MEETINGS SCHEDULED AND ACTUALLY DO
ANYTHING. SO THEY'RE GOING TO MISS ABOUT A
YEAR OF VALID, IMPORTANT, KIND OF CRITICAL SCIENCE ADVICE.
IT'S A VERY CRITICAL TIME RIGHT NOW FOR THEM.
>> HOW UNUSUAL WAS IT FOR YOU TO GET THIS PRESSURE THAT YOU GOT
FROM THE NEW CHIEF OF STAFF AT THE EPA ABOUT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL
TESTIMONY? >> WELL, IT WAS HIGHLY UNUSUAL
FOR ME BECAUSE I'VE ONLY TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF CONGRESS A
FEW TIMES. SO THAT ALONE WAS A PRETTY
UNUSUAL EXPERIENCE. BUT GETTING THESE E-MAILS THE
NIGHT BEFORE WAS VERY DISTURBING.
IT WAS VERY -- I HAVE TO SAY I WAS PRETTY INTIMIDATED BECAUSE I
HAD MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO EVERYONE THAT I WAS TESTIFYING
AS AN INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC EXPERT, AND I WAS NOT T TESTIFYG
AS AN EPA WITNESS. AND I HAD TOLD EPA THAT AND
CLEARED IT WITH THEIR ETHICS FOLKS.
SO I KNEW WHAT I COULD AND COULD NOT DO GIVEN THAT I WAS ALSO
CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE. SO I WAS FOLLOWING WHAT I
THOUGHT WERE THE RIGHT RULES, AND AFTER THE FIRST EXCHANGE OF
E-MAILS, WE KIND OF SORTED OUT THAT I'M NOT AN EPA WITNESS.
BUT THEN I KEPT GETTING THESE E-MAILS.
AND THEN I GOT THAT FINAL E-MAIL WHICH WAS, WE WANT YOU TO CHANGE
YOUR TESTIMONY. AND IT WAS A MINOR POINT, BUT IT
WAS CHANGING THE MESSAGE I WAS GIVING.
IT WAS CHANGING THE WORDING, AND I THOUGHT WHO ARE THEY TO BE
TELLING ME WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO BE SAYING WHEN IT'S MY
TESTIMONY? AND FURTHER MORE, I'VE ALREADY
SUBMITTED IT. SO I WAS VERY INTIMIDATED BY
THAT. I WASN'T HAPPY ABOUT THAT.
>> AND YOU GAVE YOUR TESTIMONY AS YOU INTENDED TO GIVE YOUR
TESTIMONY. >> ABSOLUTELY.
>> DEBORAH SWAKHAMMER, CHAIR OF THE EPA'S BOARD OF SCIENTIFIC
COUNSELORS, THANK YOU FOR HELPING US UNDERSTAND THIS AT
ALL LEVELS. AND THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DID.
No comments:
Post a Comment