screener, I admit to being a little confused about what you are suggesting here, but clearly you seem to think the scientific process is somehow corrupt. The reality is that the proponents have to deliver all the research data they have to the regulators. There are substantial fines for not doing so and to be honest, there is not much benefit for the company in holding information back. That information will come out eventually.
The regulators have a list of issues which need to be addressed in the applications. The terms of reference for these are not open to interpretation, as they are usually set in legislation. The data is then assessed by independent scientists within the regulator, or external experts if the regulators feel the need. If the scientists are not happy with the quality of the information supplied, they send the application back for more information. Only once the scientists within the regulatory process are satisfied that the product is likely to be no more dangerous to human health or the environment, is it moved on. The regulatory process can take quite a long time because all the issues need to be dealt with.
__________________
"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." Abraham Lincoln
|