Sidney Shapiro, a scholar at the Center for Progressive Regulation, has this to say about conservative attacks on David Michaels, the George Washington University epidemiologist nominated to head OSHA:
How’s this for any irony? David Michaels, President Obama’s nominee to head the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), has written a book, published by Oxford University press, documenting how industry manufactures doubts that chemicals harm people by accusing regulators and plaintiff lawyers of relying of “junk science” instead of “sound science.” Now, after Michaels has exposed this effort as a public relations campaign that mischaracterizes how science actually works, he is being attacked on the grounds, you guessed it, of favoring junk science. And, because he favors “junk science,” he must be, you guessed it, a “radical.”
It's very simple. If you buy the idea that what some conservatives call "sound science" is good, and what those same pundits call "junk science" is bad, then David Michaels is your worst nightmare. However, if you have any capacity to see past these slogans and evaluate the scientific validity of various stances on the use of science in government decision-making...well, then the people who use the slogans are the problem, and David Michaels would be a much needed reprieve. Take your pick--but I would advise first reading Michaels' book
my review is here
), or my own The Republican War on Science
, both of which expose the "sound science"/"junk science" charade.
