Once again, the National Academy of Sciences has been called to task for stacking an advisory panel with industry-backed players, setting up a serious conflict of interests. This time around, the problematic NAS panel is the Committee to Study Mine Placement of Coal Combustion Wastes, which is charged with addressing the environmental consequences of dumping toxic wastes in mines. Here's an excerpt of a letter to NAS challenging the composition of the panel: Whether CCW disposal in mines is destructive to the environment is a politically charged question that has substantial economic implications for this nation’s coal-fired utilities and the coal mining industry. Consequently, it is absolutely essential that this NAS panel avoid conflicts of interest and bias to the fullest extent possible. Unfortunately, we believe that NAS has neither complied with federal law nor its own policy. To illustrate, nearly half of the provisional panel consists of individuals with clear ties to the mining and utility industries, but only one scientist who has documented damage from CCW was appointed. The NAS appointed this grossly unbalanced committee despite their receipt of the names of 20 experts who studied the adverse impacts of CCW, many in the mining context. While the economic stakes are high for utilities and mine operators, the stakes are even higher for communities threatened by the dumping of millions of tons of toxic waste in mines. The undersigned believe that this practice poses serious threats to the environment and public health. However, a fair and unbiased study of these threats cannot be produced by a committee in which a substantial proportion of the members have ties to parties having financial interests in the outcome of the study. This challenge is far from the first. The NAS stacked mining interests on another panel, in that case a panel charged with investigating the clean-up of the Superfund site in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Other recent panels that the NAS stacked with biased industry representatives include a committee to investigate the health consequences of perchlorate ingestion and one assessing plants genetically modified for pest protection. Keep in mind that "highly influential scientific assessments" must be subjected to arduous peer review procedures -- unless they are produced by the NAS, in which case they are deemed trustworthy. Even, presumably, if the assessments come from panels stacked with industry reps. Read the update.