Remember when tobacco executives said smoking didn't cause cancer? It was based on their own research...science. Or that climate change is fake, based on corporate research they call "science."
Well, Republicans want to make the stuff churned out by think tanks and corporations into policy making "science."
And they're hoping slip this stuff by the public, who probably won't notice the play on words. Who are they? Roll Call:
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT HURDLES: The House passed a Republican-drafted bill (HR 4315) requiring the Department of the Interior to publish online the scientific basis of all new “endangered species” and “threatened species” designations under the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA). The bill also requires the department to treat data from state, local and tribal governments as “best available science” in making decisions on species protection.
What data? Hearsay science? Special interest “science.” Republicans want what could be called “data” from the state, local and tribal governments. They also want it treated as “the best available science,” even if it might not exactly be science. That’s like the state asking people to report seeing deer and treating it as an official “count.” Oh, they’re already doing that.
My Head Explodes: I don’t understand how small government Republicans who believe in the free market can write laws that limit private attorney fees in lawsuits. I’m stumped. Here’s another instance written into this bill:
In addition, the bill puts a $125-per-hour cap on government payments of “prevailing attorney fees” in litigation challenging endangered-species designations.
Hey, let’s cap government payments to those attorney’s representing politicians in John Doe probes. I’m all for it now.
Voting yes to turn special interest research into “the best available science” and meddling in private sector attorney’s fees: Ryan, Sensenbrenner, Petri, Duffy, and Ribble.
And when Democrats tried to fine tune and define what was scientific:
Republicans refused to strip HR 4315 (above) the “best available scientific and commercial data,” even if it has not been subjected to peer review. In the scientific community, peer review is a discipline in which new research is not accepted as valid until it is evaluated by other experts in the same field.
Voting against the revision and making it perfectly clear actual science was not what they were looking for: Ryan, Sensenbrenner, Petri, Duffy, and Ribble.