
EPA dismisses half of its scientific advisers on key board - aceperry
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/07/epa-dismisses-half-of-its-scientific-advisers-on-key-board-citing-clean-break-with-obama-administration/
======
defined
The new EPA administration is reducing peer reviews?

Some of us HN readers, call ourselves Computer Scientists, some Software
Engineers, some are other type of scientists. I believe that for many HN
readers, science is a core component of who we are, professionally, and of
what we do, or at the very least, we understand the vital importance of rigor
in science.

We should collectively be extremely concerned that the EPA administration
appears to be attacking the scientific method and replacing it with what I
fear will become pseudoscience.

It is difficult for me to understand why this article has not received more
attention and prominence on HN. Surely this is important to many of HN
readers, even if it's not a technical article?

~~~
belovedeagle
Computer science is in no way a field of science. Not even close. It's a
branch of mathematics. Science is the practice of generating and testing
putative facts using experimental evidence. Computer science and mathematics
do not rely on empirical evidence and in fact empirical evidence is entirely
illegitimate as a proof method.

~~~
MaulingMonkey
"I hypothesize the bug is in X. I predict if I add assertions Y and Z, they
will trigger. My testing contradicts my predictions - I hypothesize the bug is
in ..."

"I hypothesize the performance problem is in X. I predict if I add
instrumentation Y and Z, it will show X is wasting several milliseconds per
frame. My testing..."

"I hypothesize a blue background will be liked more by our users. I predict
using a blue background will increase our retention rate. My testing..."

"I hypothesize the following invariants will hold about the code I've just
written. I predict if I write these unit tests..."

"I hypothesize game mechanic X will be lots of fun. I predict if we build this
prototype, ..."

For being "pure math", we're sure using the scientific method a lot. And
measuring the real world. And decision-making based on empirical evidence. If
your argument is there isn't _enough_ science in computer science _education_
, I might agree.

But then there are questions like "what's the impact on static vs dynamic
typing on bug rates and productivity?" \- in our current state, this is not
computer math. It's not even on the mathy side of computer science right now -
it is closer to being computer _philosophy_. We lack the experiments (can't
control the other variables for A/B testing programming languages without
perhaps actually writing bespoke programming languages for that very
purpose!), and we've had a relatively short time to build our models of the
computing universe... we're perhaps still building out the math necessary to
_create_ all those models...

~~~
jaredklewis
There are aspects of the scientific method in programming work, but I feel it
has much more in common with engineering than science.

Science uses the scientific method to model the universe. The experiments
serve the purpose of clarifying that model and uncovering new information.

I feel programming is more like building a bridge. An engineer uses his
knowledge of physics and (much more importantly) a wealth of field knowledge
and best practices to design the bridge. As a programmer, I have tasks much
like building bridges, only they are apps. I don't discover new algorithms
through experimentation. I implement algorithms that are already well
understood. If there is a problem in my code and I run performance tests, the
tests do not clarify hitherto unknown phenomena regarding the nature of
computers. They simply highlight human errors or bottlenecks caused by well
understood characteristics of the underlying computer system.

If this is considered science, then basically anything that involves trial and
error, be it snowboarding or checkers, is science.

Of course I admit it may depend on what you do (programming is a broad field).
There are those, for example, that invent algorithms and such, though it seems
to me those computer scientists are more mathematicians than scientists.

The one area of my work I have felt was scientific was AB testing, which is a
kind of consumer science.

~~~
AlphaSite
Are all biologists scientists, or only researchers? Because your statements
seem to imply that you believe the latter (where CS researchers also lie).

~~~
jaredklewis
Biologists are clearly scientific researchers, tasked with discovering the
immense body of unknown knowledge about living organisms. Based almost entirly
on systematic observation and experimentation, Biology explifies science.

I feel their job is very different than most CS researchers that seem to me
more like mathematicians, or industry programmers which are more like
engineers.

------
mirimir
This is a total non-surprise. He's following through on campaign promises, is
all. And seriously, the EPA has been on a short leash since the start. Sure,
it was worse under Reagan and Bush vs Clinton and Obama. But remember:

> 1970 was a year of tremendous environmental action by Nixon and Congress.The
> President signed the National Environmental Policy Act on January 2nd,
> delivered a call to make "the 1970s a historic period when, by conscious
> choice, [we] transform our land into what we want it to become" in his State
> of the Union Address, and ended the year with the creation of an independent
> agency to regulate the environment.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/galle...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/gallery-
why-nixon-created-the-epa/67351/)

Nixon has a bad reputation, obviously, but he was arguably quite enlightened
about environmental and social issues. He might have championed a national
minimum income, if he hadn't crashed and burned.

------
victor9000
We seriously need a non-profit who creates NGOs to continue the scientific
research that's being smothered by the current administration.

~~~
smt88
I agree. If anything good comes from this administration, it'll be that
important work will be less vulnerable to the whims of politicians. That's why
I've donated to NGOs that replace the things Trump is killing.

Unfortunately, in the case of climate, we'll never be able to compensate for
the dismantling of the EPA. NGOs can't regulate.

~~~
cryptarch
They can however make recommendations for regulations, and influence U.N.
regulatory guidelines.

This could make a low-staffed EPA significantly more effective, because then
it would only have to pick and choose regulations to implement/try to pass.

~~~
jacquesm
But they'd never pass.

~~~
cryptarch
Not in the next 3,5 years, no.

------
downrightmike
Teapot dome, if no one is watching the hen house, the foxes will walk right
in: [https://www.britannica.com/event/Teapot-Dome-
Scandal](https://www.britannica.com/event/Teapot-Dome-Scandal)

~~~
inspector-g
Can you elaborate on how you believe this relates to the linked article?
(Genuinely asking.)

------
eecc
Great... leveraging the usual "broaden the competitive landscape" rhetoric -
who can possibly say no to competition! - they're re-opening all the disputes
over settled science that were a thorn in the ass of their corporate cronies.

No biggie, we'll have to re-discus them to death once again and while this
battle of attrition works another round, it's more profit for them, and
irreparable damage for the whole darn world.

At some stage we will have to implement retroactive reparations, this game is
so obvious it borders deliberate affront

------
cmejo
I love how instead of discussing the (important) topic of the OP we are
debating whether CS is a science or art or humanities or not.

------
enraged_camel
Articles like this keep getting flagged (because some people on HN are more
interested in living in their little tech bubble), so I will say this before
that happens: this administration will set back American science and
technology by at least a couple of decades. And that's a conservative
estimate.

Pruitt will surround himself with yes-men, and that is super scary when it
comes to science. Essentially, all science that does not fit the
administration's agenda will be rejected. This is just one of the precursors.

~~~
supremesaboteur
This article does not support what you are saying.

> EPA spokesman J.P. Freire said in an email that “no one has been fired or
> terminated,” and that Pruitt had simply decided to bring in fresh advisers"

> “We’re not going to rubber-stamp the last administration’s appointees.
> Instead, they should participate in the same open competitive process as the
> rest of the applicant pool,” Freire said. “This approach is what was always
> intended for the Board

> Courtney Flint ... said ... that she was also surprised to learn that her
> term would not be renewed, “particularly since I was told that such a
> renewal was expected.”

> “In the broader view, I suppose it is the prerogative of this administration
> to set the goals of federal agencies and to appoint members to advisory
> boards,” she added.

> Conservatives have complained about EPA’s approach to science, including the
> input it receives from outside scientific bodies

> “They’re going to have to start dealing with science and not rigged science”

> “The EPA routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive
> millions of dollars in grants from the federal government,” Smith said at
> the time. “The conflict of interest here is clear.”

Even if you believe that the conservatives are trying to pack EPA with
"climate change deniers", you should be glad that their research is now going
to reach a wider audience and therefore can be subject to more crictism.

This seems like a good move for science

~~~
androck1
"In a budget proposal obtained by The Washington Post last month, the panel is
slated for an 84 percent cut — or $542,000 — from its operating budget. That
money typically covers travel and other expenses for outside experts who
attend the board’s public meetings.

The reasoning behind the budget cut, said the document, reflects 'an
anticipated lower number of peer reviews.'"

Doesn't sound like a "good move for science" to me.

~~~
cryptarch
Also doesn't sound like it will result in "more input from outside scientific
bodies", because the budget for that got cut by 84%...

By the way, was that a euphemism for commerce-backed science? Like the science
done for cosmetics companies and the tobacco industry?

It doesn't feel like they're talking about foreign Universities.

------
jvandonsel
Finally! I can use DDT again to get rid of those pesky bald eagles around my
property.

------
treytrey
Treason and Reason are confusingly similar to some...

------
watertorock
What do scientists know?

~~~
cryptarch
To be very precise in the questions they ask.

