Posted Bill Couzens,Founder,

Politicians shaping science?

Startling when sound sciences reports 70/80% of all cancer are linked to the environment (as opposed to heredity); meaning that most all cancer comes from outside of our bodies.

Cancer is not an unlucky roll of the dice.

Cancer is manufactured.

Cancer causing exposures do comefrom outside of the body on a multitude of levels to include, behavior relative to habits that may include smoking.

The condition of the environment today is the proverbial mirror for human health.

Human health pays when sound science is ignored.

Everyday more than 1,500 men, women and children die of cancer in the U.S.

Understanding those devastating numbers highlights that there is little harm is preventing those environmental exposures that are either suspected and or known to be cancer causing, especially those exposures that are preventable and unnecessary.

Consistently lawmakers have lowered the bar for protecting human health, yielding not to sound science but to profit.

Yes the cure for cancer is critical.

But little in the area of prevention is being done relative to cancer.

While everyone may wish for a world of less cancer, somehow cancer treatment has evolved to being a leading industry in the United States.

The economics of precaution are recognized, however the pressure for immediate profit seems to be blindingly distracting for some lawmakers.

Unfortunately human health seemingly takes a back seat to profit.

We must ask ourselves at what expense?

Posted May 3, 2008 | 04:25 PM (EST)

……………….One half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work.

The report said 60 percent of those responding, or 889 scientists, reported personally experiencing political interference in their work over the last five years. Nearly 400 scientists said they had witnessed EPA officials misrepresenting scientific findings, 284 said they had seen the “selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome” and 224 scientists said they had been directed to “inappropriately exclude or alter technical information” in an EPA document. Nearly 200 of the respondents said they had been in situations where they or their colleagues actively objected to or resigned from projects “because of pressure to change scientific findings.” The University sent an online questionnaire to 5,500 EPA scientists and received 1,586 responses, a majority of them senior scientists who have worked for the agency for 10 years or more. The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in the life and environmental sciences.

The highest number of complaints about political interference came from scientists who are directly involved in writing regulations and those who conduct risk assessments such as determining a chemicals cancer risk for humans.

“The investigation shows researchers are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations,” UCS said.

In the survey, the EPA scientists described an agency suffering from low morale as the agency’s political appointees and the White House Office of Management and Budget frequently second-guess scientific findings and change work conducted by EPA’s scientists.

EPA managers initially instructed employees not to participate in the survey, but the EPA’s general counsel’s office later sent an e-mail to employees saying they could participate in their private time.