Comment on Peer Review Standards

Omb

Description

"Shapiro, Sidney" 12/07/2003 01:46:56 PM Record Type: Record To: Mabel E. Echols OMB_Peer_Review/OMB/EOP@EOP cc: Subject: Comments from CPR on OMB's Proposed Peer Review Bulletin <> Dear Dr. Schwab, Please find attached comments on OMB's Proposed Peer Review Bulletin from the Center for Progressive Regulation. Please disregard an earlier attempt to email you these comments because I erroneously attached the wrong version. (I withdrew this email but I don't know if it was delivered.) The correct version is dated Dec. 7, 2003. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sid Shapiro Sidney A. Shapiro Rounds Professor of Law 785-864-9222 (telephone) 785-864-9222 (fax) 1535 W. 15th Street Lawrence, KS. 66045-7577 - OMB.peerreviewcomments12.07.03..PDF Center For Progressive Regulation P.O. Box76239 Washington, DC 20013-1293www.progresiveregulation.org SidneyA. ShapiroBoard of Directors 785 864-9222Thomas McGarity shapiro@ ku..eduSidney Shapiro Rena Steinzor Lisa Heinzerling C hristopher Schroeder December 7, 2003 Dr. Margo SchwabOficeofInformtaionand RegulatoryAfairs OficeofManagement and Budget th725 17 Street, N.W.New ExecutiveOficeBldg., Room 10201Washington, D.C.Re: Proposed Bulletin on Peer Review and Information Quality Dear Dr. Schwab: OMB hasproposed aBuletinthat would supplement exsitnigproceduresunder theInformtiaon 1Quality Act ...

Informations

• Publié par: Ucte
• Nombre de lectures: 17
• Langue: English

Extrait

Dear Dr. Schwab, Please find attached comments on OMB's Proposed Peer Review Bulletin from the Center for Progressive Regulation. Please disregard an earlier attempt to email you these comments because I erroneously attached the wrong version. (I withdrew this email but I don't know if it was delivered.) The correct version is dated Dec. 7, 2003. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sid Shapiro Sidney A. Shapiro Rounds Professor of Law 785-864-9222 (telephone) 785-864-9222 (fax) 1535 W. 15th Street Lawrence, KS. 66045-7577 - OMB.peerreviewcomments12.07.03..PDF Center For Progressive Regulation P.O. Box76239 Washington, DC 20013-1293www.progresiveregulation.org SidneyA. ShapiroBoard of Directors 785 864-9222Thomas McGarity shapiro@ ku..eduSidney Shapiro Rena Steinzor Lisa Heinzerling C hristopher Schroeder December 7, 2003 Dr. Margo SchwabOficeofInformtaionand RegulatoryAfairs OficeofManagement and Budget th725 17 Street, N.W.New ExecutiveOficeBldg., Room 10201Washington, D.C.Re: Proposed Bulletin on Peer Review and Information Quality Dear Dr. Schwab: OMB hasproposed aBuletinthat would supplement exsitnigproceduresunder theInformtiaon 1Quality Act ..." />

"Shapiro, Sidney" <[e-mail]> 12/07/2003 01:46:56 PM

      Record Type:   Record   To: Mabel E. Echols OMB Peer Review/OMB/EOP@EOP _ _ cc: Subject: Comments from CPR on OMB's Proposed Peer Review Bulletin     <<OMB.peerreviewcomments12.07.03..PDF>>  Dear Dr. Schwab,  Please find attached comments on OMB's Proposed Peer Review Bulletin from the Center for Progressive Regulation. Please disregard an earlier attempt to email you these comments because I erroneously attached the wrong version. (I withdrew this email but I don't know if it was delivered.) The correct version is dated Dec. 7, 2003.  Thank you for this opportunity to comment.  Sid Shapiro  Sidney A. Shapiro Rounds Professor of Law 785-864-9222 (telephone) 785-864-9222 (fax) 1535 W. 15th Street Lawrence, KS. 66045-7577   - OMB.peerreviewcomments12.07.03..PDF

Board of Directors Thomas McGarity Sidney Shapiro Rena Steinzor Lisa Heinzerling C hristopher Schroeder

Center For Progressive Regulation P.O. Box76239 Washington, DC 20013-1293 www.progre s iveregulation.org  SidneyA. Shapiro 785 864-9222 s hapiro@ ku..edu

December 7, 2003  Dr. Margo Schwab  O f iceofInformationand RegulatoryA f airs  O f ice  ofManagement and Budget  725 17 th Street, N.W.  New ExecutiveO f iceBldg  ., Room 10201  Washington, D.C.  Re: Proposed Bulletin on Peer Review and Information Quality Dear Dr. Schwab:  OMB hasproposed aBu l etinthat would supplement existingproceduresunder theInformation  Quality Act (IQA) 1 by requiring peer review ofregulatory information and by specifying the  proceduresunder which that review would take place.  2 OMB hasalso proposed to become intimatelyinvolved intheresolutionofinformationqualitycomplaints.  3 Thescopeofmatters covered Bu l etin is overbroad and therefore exceeds OMB‘s legalauthortiy. For the same reasons, theBu l etinwi l result induplicativeand costlypeer review. Initspreoccupationwith agency-funded scientists, and its omission of comparable rules for industry scientists, the Bu l etinwi l not accomplish themost important reform that could justifytisi s uance: ensuring  that peer review isbalanced for biasand thereforeisnot dominated byregulated industriesto the  extent it istoday.  TheCenter for Progre s iveRegulation(CPR)appreciatestheopportunityto comment onthese  proposals. CPR is an organization of academics specializing in the legal, economic,and  scientific issuesthat surround health, safety, and environmentalregulation. Asour webstie  indicates, www.progressiveregulation.org , CPR‘s mi s ion is to advance the public‘s understandingofthei s uesaddressed bythecountry'sheatlh, safetyand environmentallawsand  to make the nation‘s response to health, safety, and environmentalthreats as e f ective as possible. TheCenter iscommtited to developingand sharingknowledgeand information, wtih  theutlimateaim ofpreservingthefundamentalvalueofthelifeand heatlh ofhumanbeingsand the naturalenvironment. CPR circulates academic papers, studies,and other analyses that 

1 Treasuryand GeneralAppropriationsAct for FiscalYear 2001, Pub. L. No. 106, § 515 (2001).  2 Proposed Bu l etinonPeer Review and InformationQuality, 68 Fed. Reg. 54023 (2003).  3 Id.

promotepublicpolicybased onthemultiplesocialvaluesthat motivated theenactment ofour nation'sheatlh, safetyand environmentallaws. CPR seeksto inform thepublicabout scholarship  that  envisionsgovernment asan arena where membersofsociety choose and preserve their co l ectivevalues. Wereject theideathat government'sonlyfunctionisto increasetheeconomic  e f iciencyofprivatemarkets. TheCenter also seeksto provokedebateonhow thegovernment‘sauthortiyand resourcesmay best beused to preserveco l ectivevaluesand to hold accountablethosewho ignoreor trivialize them. We seek to inform the public about ideasto expand and strengthen public decision- making by facilitating the participation ofgroups representing the public interest that must struggle  with limtied informationand accessto technicalexpertise.  S UM M ARY OMB proposesmandatorypeer review eventhough theIQA saysnothingabout peer review and containsno directive that agenciesmust use it before disseminating information. Moreover,  OMB proposes to require peer review   even though Congress rejected legislation mandating  4 similar peer review proceduresjust afew yearsago. Inlight ofthelackofstatutoryauthority  for itsproposa,l OMB seeksto justifytispeer review requirementsbynotingthat scientistsand  government o f icialshaverecognized theim  portanceofpeer review in regulatory processes.  5 Thereisadi f erence, however, between recognizing in the abstract that peer review can aid regulatory decision-making and developing specificproposalsfor making peer review usefu.l  When OMB fi l sin thedetails, ti failsto limti peer review to circumstanceswhereti isbest utilized, and ti d  oesnot providefor an accountableand balanced peer review processin   those circumstances.  Morespecifica l y, CPR asksthat OMB consider thefo l owingobjectionsto tisproposal: ñ  OMB‘sassert  ion ofjurisdiction to require agenciesto use peer review regarding the  dissemination ofinformation isdoubtfu.l Even ifOMB hasauthority to require peer review for information that thegovernment di s eminatesin reportsand on theWeb, ti  lackstheauthortiyto requirepeer review inrulemakingbecausetheIQA doesnot apply to rulemaking. OMB should deletetherequirement that agenciesundertakepeer review  with respect to scientific information that is already subject to extensive notice and  comment in thecontext ofarulemaking covered by theAdministrative  ProcedureAct (APA).  ñ   OMB failst  o target peer review to thosestiuationsinwhich it might bemost useful.In  light of the considerable costs of peer review, OMB should limit peer review to  circumstancesin which theinformation to bedisseminated setsanew precedent or is reasonablycontrovert  ible. ñ   OMB‘se f ort to avoid  theFederalAdvisoryCommtiteeAct (FACA)doesnot servetis  purposeofincreasingpublicconfidenceintheinformationthat government di s eminates.

4 See, e.g ., H.R. 9 (1995). 5 Proposed Bu l etin, supra note2, at 54024. 2