Will President Obama's actions match his lofty rhetoric? He has charted an ambitious course. He is pursuing nuclear disarmament while North Korea launches ICBM missles. He's ended the "War on Terror" and apparently extending U.S. civil rights to law-breakers like the Somalian pirates. At home, he's promised the biggest spending program in history while being able to cut the deficit by half, all paid for by raising taxes on just 5% of American taxpayers. Lofty -- and oft-lauded -- rhetoric. A lot of these issues won't be sorted out in the near term.
Another rhetorical flourish, however, will be tested this coming Tuesday, April 14, in a federal appeals courtroom in California . Pres. Obama has promised major changes in his Administration to reform the way the federal government uses science . This was to include the Freedom of Information Act and other changes to federal policy to ensure that public policy follows the science. "Restoration" of scientific integrity resonated during the campaign. Now comes the acid test: a court case on the Data Quality Act.
The issue is medical marijuana . That's not a Salt Institute issue. The Salt Institute's issue is the statute being tested: the Data Quality Act (DQA). Signed into law by President Clinton, the DQA affirms that no federal policies will rely on scientific data that does not meet certain quality standards, among them that the data are available for independent verification.
Unfortunately, during the last Administration, the Department of Justice controverted the intent of the law and convinced a federal appeals court in the 4th district in the case, Salt Institute v. Leavitt , that the Data Quality Act was not judicially reviewable. The bureaucracy would determine for itself if its data followed the statute's strict requirements. The government had been asked to produce for independent review rudimentary statistical analysis of the DASH-Sodium study which it was using as justification for the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. Not wanting to divulge the information, the Department of Health and Human Services denied a DQA petition from the Salt Insitute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and refused to reconsider it on appeal. The court decision to leave the matter with the agency totally neutered the statute and, doubtless, contributed to the Adminstration's alleged arrogance in subverting science.
Now comes the DOJ again to court in a case that many Obama partisans support -- opening up use of medical marijuana. The argument is made that the government has no compelling data to deny states the right to allow the practice. Will DOJ on Tuesday adopt the stance of the former Administration that "Uncle Sam knows best" what data should be allowed into the policy discussion? Or will the new Obama DOJ implement the lofty ideals espoused by the President that scientific integrity be restored and only high quality data be the basis for federal policy.
The larger issue was captured in a "Power and Control " blog today by"M. Simon of Rockford, IL" noted in today:
It would seem that the Federal Government and Congress have not been keeping up. Justice Clarence Thomas got it right in a medical marijuana case (Raich) when he said
"Congress presented no evidence in support of its conclusions (that marijuana has no medical value - ed.) , which are not so much findings of fact as assertions of power," and Thomas concludes: "Congress cannot define the scope of its own power merely by declaring the necessity of its enactments."
So, who's in control? President Obama with his ideals? Or the federal bureaucrats who seek to avoid accountability by thwarting the Data Quality Act and its lofty, laudable requirements that federal policy follow the science. It doesn't take a new law. We hope it doesn't take a "Saturday Night Massacre" at the Justice Department to make the right moral choice.
Add comment