U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Undergoes Purge
The concept of a “purge” implies the removal all elements that may act to impede the progress of a ruling authority. The most famous examples in recent history have been the USSR’s Joseph Stalin, who imprisoned and executed citizens accused of plotting against Communism, Mao Zedong’s purge as part of the Cultural Revolution, Fidel Castro’s removal of those who had previously been involved with the Batista regime, and what’s still happening in Turkey after the failed 2016 Turkish coup d’état. In addition to Turkey, China, Egypt, Iran, Bahrain, Eritrea, and Syria regularly imprison journalists in an effort to stifle dissenting views.
Not all purges are this violent; some of them are far more subtle, and don’t involve firing squads. Take what’s happening in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as an example, with its purge of scientists who don’t toe the fossil fuel industry line. According to this article, EPA chief Scott Pruitt told the conservative Heritage Foundation on Tuesday that he is planning to rid his agency’s advisory boards of scientists who have received federal grants (to work on climate change research/mitigation), arguing that such funding compromises the “independence” of their work.
The purge is on.
Craig,
I’m curious, lately it seems you accept every leftist news item, no matter how steeped in hysterical bias, or obscure the publication, without any attempt to check veracity or even accuracy. Why ?
Scott Pruitt, like everyone else in the US Federal Public Service is being required to downsize and streamline those agencies which have grown excessively bloated, or bureaucratic.
Scott Pruitt’s policy is very clear. The EPA will no longer provide sinecures for politically activist employees or advisory panels.
More importantly, there is no “purge” ! All members of advisory boards are short term appointments, not permanent employees. In some cases their appointments were not renewed or the board itself was disbanded.
Some of the advisory boards duplicate the work done by other federal agency advisory boards.
Why should having been once funded by a research grant by a Fossil fuel institute exclude an academic, while other having been funded by the ethanol industry be acceptable ?
The argument these advisory panels have become self-appointing and self perpetuating private clubs, with members all adhering to a particular agenda, at the taxpayers expense is not without validity.
Why is concern a conflict of interest may occur if members of the advisory panels to review research conducted by the EPA, or funded by EPA grants, are those same academics who are grant recipients invalid ?