In today's New York Times, there appears a story by reporter Gardiner Harris about FDA's new guidance intending to reduce conflicts of interest on agency advisory boards. (Note: The story refers to the proposal as "rules" but it is actually "draft guidance" which, unlike rules/regulations, does not carry the force of law.) The guidance is a response to an increasing problem at FDA: Scientists determining the public safety of drugs and medical devices often have financial ties to the products or industry on which they are commenting. There are pros and cons to the draft guidance. The good:

A report by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) points out President Bush's budget request proposes a cut in funding devoted to economic research at EPA. In this case, the research is needed to develop cost-benefit analyses which in turn are needed to promulgate regulations. The proposed budget calls for a 58 percent cut in funding for what the report calls "Economics and Decision Sciences." EPA would consolidate offices and personnel to accomplish the cut. From the report: SAB is concerned that consolidation might actually decrease the amount of economics research at EPA and also impede the development of a high quality research portfolio in behavioral social and decision sciences. The White House consistently claims that economic factors should be paramount in the regulatory process, but this proposed cut belies their rhetoric. President Bush is not concerned with how regulations might improve the economic standing of the American people. He is only concerned with delaying regulations so that corporate interests will benefit.

As Reg•Watch blogged yesterday, a House committee held a hearing to investigate the Bush administration's manipulation of government climate science. The hearing was the second by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to examine political interference in climate science. Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) called the first hearing after the White House Council on Environmental Quality's refused to turn over documents the committee had requested. In his opening remarks, Waxman said CEQ has turned over eight boxes but has not yet fulfilled the months old request. Still, the evidence the committee has seen "suggests there may have been a concerted effort directed by the White House to mislead the public about the dangers of global climate change." The testimony of Philip Cooney was nothing to write home about. Cooney was CEQ chief of staff (in between stints at the American Petroleum Institute and Exxon-Mobil) until 2005. He resigned after it was discovered he had altered climate science documents to plant seeds of doubt. Not surprisingly, Cooney claimed his actions were completely justified and cited a National Academies of Science report as his basis. The committee quickly shot holes through his defense. Waxman pressed Cooney on a verbatim quote from the NAS report he had completely removed. The sentence indicated the breadth and severity of climate change. Read more from The New York Times