It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The relationship between science and policy is an important topic in evidence-based public health policy and practice (1). It seems logical to assume that as scientific research generates more quality findings, policymakers will make better decisions. However, numerous underlying obstacles exist (2).
A systematic framework can be used to describe the key components that link science to policy. The framework, which consists of three areas that are subdivided into 12 essentials (basic elements), reveals issues and solutions related to science-based decision making. In this article, policy is defined broadly to include not only legislation but also "prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs" and "a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions" (3). Therefore, the term policymakers may encompass public health practitioners, public health researchers, and even the general public, because members of the general public make health decisions for themselves and their families.
Science-based policy involves producing high-quality scientific evidence, building bridges between the producers and users of scientific evidence, and incorporating scientific evidence into health policy and practice (4). Accordingly, the three primary areas in science-based policy are knowledge generation, knowledge exchange, and knowledge uptake (Table 1). Within these three areas, the 12 essentials are categorized as follows: knowledge generation — 1) credible design, 2) accurate data, 3) sound analysis, and 4) comprehensive synthesis; knowledge exchange — 5) relevant content, 6) appropriate translation, 7) timely dissemination, and 8) modulated release; and knowledge uptake — 9) accessible information, 10) readable message, 11) motivated user, and 12) rewarding outcome (Table 1).
Under the Inventory Update Rule (IUR), which provides EPA with chemical use
and exposure data, only manufacturers are required to report. EPA gets no information from downstream processors, distributors or users of the chemical even though they are typically in the best position to know and report accurate information on chemical use.
The IUR data provided often fails to provide any information on a chemical’s use in consumer products. One of the greatest potential sources of children’s exposure to toxic chemicals is through the use of consumer products in the home.
This means that chemicals that are highly hazardous but to which EPA asserts people are only moderately exposed, or chemicals that are moderately hazardous but to which people are highly exposed, are downgraded in priority. This failure to err on the side of caution, especially given the very limited data available to EPA, is likely to result in decisions that do not adequately protect public health.
“GDP growth in the United States has limped along at the anemic annual rate of 0.6 percent while China’s economy has soared at the annual rate of 9.12 percent, more than 15 times our own,” says Daniel Kish, senior VP with the Institute for Energy Research. “Clearly, the policies and priorities of Steven Chu’s energy department have benefitted our global competitors and intensified the economic pain felt by millions of unemployed Americans.”
Originally posted by andy06shake
Buddy unless this recession picks up in the next year or so then us Humans have pretty much peaked.
It wont be a better future for our children, it will be a far worse future IMHO!