Today's
Unknown
News
:
Bush nominees may spell
beginning of the end for the
Environmental Protection Agency


by Cheryl Seal

Testing 1 2 3



George Bush lives in Backwardland -- a bizarre, disturbing land where time runs in reverse, and citizens live in a dysfunctional two-dimensional state that is halfway between the past and the present, never making it to the future. It is a land populated by aging generals, political relics, and Jacob Marley-like CEOs, all stuck in a past-present-past loop. These wandering souls are doomed to keep repeating the same words and actions -- and mistakes -- over and over. One could almost feel sorry for them, were they not so determined to suck us residents of Normalworld into their tiny, creepy little land.

Alas, now they are trying to suck what remains of the EPA into Backwardland.

This past week, Bush quietly nominated two people to EPA posts -- so quietly in fact that the only place you'll probably see it is here. And with good reason. These two nominees make it painfully obvious that Bush wants to convert the agency into a big hollow barrel he can fill with corporate pork.




Gilman is a free-market (as in 'money first') corporate schmooze man all the way.




First nominee: J. Paul Gilman. I was puzzled that I could find no J. Paul Gilman in a dogpile search (and you know how that multiple search engine kicks ass). But then the reason for the insertion of the "J" became obvious when I tried the search without the monogram. Paul Gilman was one of the "experts" who, in 1997 testified before Congress that, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, that there was no relationship between the presence of nearby power lines in communities and the documented increase risk of childhood leukemia and brain tumors in those communities. This helped to discredit the research and opinions of those concerned for the welfare of children and to derail any further serious study of the problem in the U.S. Fortunately, recently new findings have emerged in European studies that do indeed support the link between power line proximity and increased leukemia and brain tumors.

But that's the least of my complaints about J. Paul Gilman.

Gilman is a free-market (as in 'money first') corporate schmooze man all the way. At present, he is the "Director of Policy Planning" (a fancy title that really means "Chief Spin Doctor") for Celera Genomics. This is the company that is determined to turn the human genome into big bucks for a few -- the same company that, in its determination to be the first to get to the end of the human genome sequencing rainbow, may have cut some pretty serious corners and possibly even fudged some results. The same company that was so determined to keep its data to itself and spin it into private gold at the expense of permitting potentially life-saving research elsewhere that Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were forced to step in and issued a joint statement in 2000: "Raw fundamental data on the human genome…should be freely available to scientists everywhere." Oh, Celera has made the data available since then, all right -- for a price: $50,000 to as much as $2 million for the rights to key genes, with the price rising according to how likely the gene is to yield a medical breakthrough. Of course, the biggest grant your typical independent researcher is ever likely to see is about $250,000. Which means they haven't a prayer of doing any work with the most important genes.



Gilman is a corporate toady, through and through, and as such, at his core, a sworn enemy of the environment.




On top of that, Gilman has wormed his way onto every possible committee involved in targeting grants for scientific research and has jammed his finger into every available political pork pie: White House Office of Management and Budget; executive assistant to the Secretary of Energy; administrative assistant to U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and staff director, U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development executive director of both the Commission on Life Sciences, the Board on Agriculture at the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. Since 1999, Gilman has served on the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the National Research Council (must have been his reward for minimizing the dangers of power lines -- Washington loves an "expert" who minimizes environmental dangers). He currently is the acting chair of the U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory Operations Board and a member of the Board of Directors of Triton Thalassic Technologies. Triton is a environmental engineering company based in Maryland that specializes in "end-of-pipe" solutions to pollution, especially in helping paper companies continue to operate as ever by simply treating the sludge they spew, not finding a way to eliminate it.

As far as I could detect, Gilman does not belong to a single environmental organization -- not even a $20 member of Audubon or Wilderness Society. He has never been involved in an project or held any job that has anything whatsoever to do with safeguarding the environment. He is a corporate toady, through and through, and as such, at his core, a sworn enemy of the environment.

As Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, Gilman would be (to quote the White House press release) "responsible for EPA's research arm comprised of three National Laboratories, two National Centers and two Washington-based science support offices. The Agency's R&D intramural and extramural science program is accomplished by a staff of 2,000 employees at 13 locations nationwide and is dedicated to the conduct of leading-edge research and fostering the sound use of science and technology to fulfill EPA's mission to protect human health and safeguard the natural environment."

Shall I translate?

Gilman will be given free rein over the nation's biggest research facilities and a staff of thousands, which he can hook up to any special interest -- such as Celera -- that he chooses. He will be free to devote all these resources to archaic end-of-pipe anti-pollution solutions that do not really solve environmental problems in the long run but sure save corporations lots of money and headaches while they continue operating in backward land. Meanwhile, constructive environmental solutions will be setback for decades to come. Gilman will also be free to foster the use of "science" according to the Bush corporate model, which defines "sound science" as anything that saves corporations money and, better, yet, allows them to pollute more. If Gilman "safeguards human health" the way he has gone about it in the past and, in fact, is going about it right now -- defending, even as we speak, Celera's right to patent up to 300 key disease genes and thereby keep them out of the hands of independent researchers, one of whom could well prove to be the next Pasteur -- then we are all in trouble.

His track record, in short, shows that he is in it for the money … big money, and will lobby and schmooze from Washington connection to connection to further the interests of money.

If you think Gilman is an asinine choice for the EPA, he only just barely managed to nose out Linda Morrison Combs in the ridiculous-if-not-downright-evil choice department. Combs has been nominated as "chief financial officer" of the EPA. She brings to the job not so much as an atom -- no, make that a quark -- of appropriate experience (although I think there is a secret law in Washington that dictates that the more critical the position, the less equipped for the job must the nominees be).

The field of environmental issues handled by the EPA involves some of the most advanced, complex, and knowledge-demanding fields that exist: pollution engineering, ecology, geophysics, climatology, soil science, oceanography, toxicology, phytoremediation, and a list of terms Ms. Combs probably wouldn't recognize if they came up and bit her on the fanny -- which they euphemistically will. Christie Whitman, another totally unqualified appointee to the EPA, by now must have to sit on a donut.

Ms. Combs most recent experience: she runs a music company in North Carolina. Before that, she did all sorts of porky jobs for Reagan and Bush, Sr. with vague and probably meaningless titles, like "Member of the President's Council for Management Improvement" ( an outfit that obviously didn't make much difference ), "Associate Administrator for Management at the Dept. of Veterans Affairs," or, porkier still, "Deputy Undersecretary for Management at the Dept. of Education" (if 'undersecretary' sounds like a made-up job, just imagine the stretch Reagan had to make to come up with 'deputy undersecretary.' Sort of like calling the kid that runs for coffee for the garbage truck guys "Associate Sanitation Engineer Apprentice, Second Class."




Yep, we can just about see how seriously Bush takes the EPA.




So now with this stellar list of multi-syllabic credentials, no background whatsoever in any way shape or form in environmental issues (well, maybe she went for a walk in a state park once), and no applicable experience (other than perhaps being familiar with triplicate forms and three-martini luncheons), Ms. Morrison's responsibilities will be (to quote the same press release): managing strategic planning and accountability , the annual budget, resources management and financial management functions, payroll and disbursements." Yep, we can just about see how seriously Bush takes the EPA, to plug Morrison into that job.

The bottom line is that Bush is trying to slip more losers onto the payroll while the nation's attention is diverted (I've given up believing anyone can get the Congressional Democrats' attention even during peace time!), the same way he slipped the odious suspected war criminal John Negroponte into the role of a UN ambassador. But what Bush and his cronies are constructing, nomination by nomination, with single-minded, greed-driven purpose, is not a government -- it is a corporate monster.


© 2001, Cheryl Seal





URLs for further information:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/celeradoubts000410.html

http://www.washtech.com/news/biotech/7931-1.html

http://id.medscape.com/APhA/PT/2000/v06.n06/PT0606.05.html

http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1999/july/palevitz_p1_990719.html

http://www.wired.com/news/print/0%2C1294%2C35566%2C00.html

http://www.bioethix.org/resources/aps/cbmcomment5.htm

http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/1025-120.html

http://www.zetetics.com/mac/partisan/040100.htm

http://www.house.gov/science/gilman_3-19.html