Librarians as advocates for common sense environmental information

[James Marple <jesl@carolina.net>]

Jim

You ask "What would you think about EPA using external review panels to help in decision-making?"  

I strongly urge such action if "external" is rigidly construed so that these panels are not "guided" by the folks they are helping. If outside groups could be informal, be insulated from lobbiests and nutcases, have adequate funding for data collection and unlimited access to files, they could function properly. If they have to deal with the many no-entry sites,  subtle obstructions and curious inabilities to produce data that limit searches by We the People, few highly qualified persons would volunteer.

  I would like to see a massive program that puts to work the many excellent minds of retired professionals. This is an invaluable resource that needs the opportunity to repay their enjoyment of a long life, by working for minimum wage in the production of clear thinking. I have failed to lure more than a few such into involvement in community affairs because their talents are valued more by McDonalds than by the Powers That Be. It's just too great a sacrifice. But their freedom from day-to-day pressure to produce could allow total focusing on reviews that working folks can't manage, producing better and more timely input than we now see. Volunteers are fine, but let's get real here, they don't always keep their reviews work on the front burner and they may cut corners when overloaded as the good ones always are. 

  I am positive that a nationwide network of cranky old dudes would generate more new thinking than most of us can now imagine. They could compose excellent review panels for every kind of information, providing better than peer review due to their greater perspective, and be highly resistant to the blandishments of profiteer's agents. (I labeled my "dream team" of independent and uncorruptible thinkers the "99ers" because that would be the mandatory age for retirement from my proposed traveling think tanks.) The Net has opened a huge door to those of limited mobility but still-firm mind, who avoid public meetings because of expense and the abuse they often receive from agents of special interests.

Isn't it safe to assume that meaningful external review is not feasible because it threatens those who manage the public's information affairs? If it is indeed a good concept, surely effective programs would have been implemented long ago.