Quote:
Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic
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.
|
I would never suggest that the scientific process is corrupt, Heaven forbid. I would say though that it is corruptible, and that the corps and the people who lead them with their child like insecutities and vast wealth are just the people to do the corrupting. What reality do you inhabit where the proponents have to deliver all the research data available?
The terms of reference are as open to interpretation as anything else that is set in stone, like the ten commandments, a source of endless disagreements.