FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4253450445> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4253450445 endingPage "4" @default.
• W4253450445 startingPage "4" @default.
• W4253450445 abstract "Providing governments with advice on difficult problems, especially those involving environmental quality, is an increasingly serious responsibility for the scientific community. In fulfilling it, we need to make sure that our input is thoughtful and technically capable, and that it reflects judgments uninflected by political or ideological conviction. It is equally important for the government to seek out the most knowledgeable scientific and technical sources for the advice it needs, and to ensure a balance of views from the advisers it chooses. Here in the US, recent actions by the administration regarding federal advisory committees are raising questions, both for government and for scientists. Objections have been raised over the non-renewal of committees that have been important to the nation's health – for example, the National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee, established in 2000 in response to deficiencies in the protection processes for human subjects, and the Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing, appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Continuity is important in both these areas, and it is hard to imagine that these vacancies can be allowed to remain. The advisory committee fuss is not only about cancellation. In an area of great importance to environmental scientists, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee for the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) was subject to almost wholesale replacement – involving 15 out of 18 members. Whenever that sort of things happens, suspicions flourish. Thus it is no surprise that some lively politics are being played out here. Indeed, an editorial by David Michaels and colleagues in the October 2002 issue of Science (Vol 298, p 703) has produced a flood of letters from persons whose service on other scientific advisory committees has been denied because they failed to pass various ideological litmus tests. The concern is understandable, and much is being made of the character and past record of certain individuals among the new members – a natural enough reaction, given the unexpectedly abrupt character of the dismissals. But the scientific community would be mistaken to single out for criticism the past positions and associations of particular individuals. Advisory committees work best when various views are present; balance is important, because it facilitates the kind of understanding that results from debate and compromise. That said, it makes sense to look at the entire roster and reach a judgment about the fairness of its composition – not person by person, but in terms of balance. Some new members of the NCEH committee appear to share a general philosophy of regulation that may be called the Certainty Principle. Whether the topic is beryllium toxicity, climate change, or the carcinogencity of asbestos, the argument runs like this: if there is still some uncertainty, we should withhold regulatory action. That is a recipe for gridlock, because governments have to make decisions about risk even when the data aren't as good as we would like. To be fair, though, the Certainty Principle probably originated as a reaction to the widespread use by the consumer and environmental movements of the Precautionary Principle, an all-purpose argument for wider safety margins. Neither is really a principle. Each is a formula, resting on assumptions about how much protection from risk societies owe their members. Scientists ought to want the NCEH committee in action, along with those FDA advisory committees, and the others. The nation needs them. For every new member who is a habitual defender of the Certainty Principle, there should be an equally informed and persuasive advocate for the Precautionary Principle. After all, convictions about risk and how we should manage it belong in the mix, but only in moderate doses. The majority of members should be scientists who are unswervingly devoted to neither, “principle” but annoyingly persistent about getting more data and doing more analysis. Prof. Donald Kennedy, Editor-in-Chief" @default.
• W4253450445 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4253450445 creator A5028735740 @default.
• W4253450445 date "2003-02-01" @default.
• W4253450445 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W4253450445 title "The Committee Furor and the Certainty Principle" @default.
• W4253450445 doi "https://doi.org/10.2307/3867947" @default.
• W4253450445 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W4253450445 type Work @default.
• W4253450445 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4253450445 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4253450445 hasAuthorship W4253450445A5028735740 @default.
• W4253450445 hasBestOaLocation W42534504451 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C181907467 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C2777278149 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C2777855551 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C2780343955 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C3017489713 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C7493553 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C111472728 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C138885662 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C144024400 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C161191863 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C17744445 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C181907467 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C199539241 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C2777278149 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C2777855551 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C2778137410 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C2780343955 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C3017489713 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C3116431 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C39549134 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C41008148 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C41895202 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C46312422 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C7493553 @default.
• W4253450445 hasConceptScore W4253450445C94625758 @default.
• W4253450445 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W4253450445 hasLocation W42534504451 @default.
• W4253450445 hasOpenAccess W4253450445 @default.
• W4253450445 hasPrimaryLocation W42534504451 @default.
• W4253450445 hasRelatedWork W1560158656 @default.
• W4253450445 hasRelatedWork W1973582743 @default.
• W4253450445 hasRelatedWork W2006760573 @default.
• W4253450445 hasRelatedWork W2029343378 @default.
• W4253450445 hasRelatedWork W2385517762 @default.
• W4253450445 hasRelatedWork W2505581945 @default.
• W4253450445 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4253450445 hasRelatedWork W4253450445 @default.
• W4253450445 hasRelatedWork W572929253 @default.
• W4253450445 hasRelatedWork W84308692 @default.
• W4253450445 hasVolume "1" @default.
• W4253450445 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4253450445 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4253450445 workType "article" @default.