"FEMA accused of twisting science in report on trailer danger". I find this article interesting both because of the claims it makes and because of its muddled construction. For example, while the article indicates that approximately 40,000 households are still living in FEMA trailers, it does not say how many trailers contain formaldehyde and to what degree, nor does it indicate the level and length of time at which formaldehyde exposure becomes problematic. The report is likely to play on the emotions and past experience of readers, because FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina has been highly criticized.
However, the article does make clear that two very different positions are being put forth regarding the formaldehyde reports, and one has to wonder what the stakes are for each side. If the article is correct and FEMA did doctor the results, why would they do so? What's in it for the whistle-blowers if the report is true... and what's in it for them if the report isn't true?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think this article highlights an important issue: the degree to which the government interferes with objective scientific research. While the absolute truth in this matter has yet to come out, the possibility of the government tampering with scientific evidence in regards to the health of United States citizens is frightening and abhorrent. In her post, Adrienne asked what the "whistleblowers" stoop to gain if these allegations turned out to be true - at best, they would have exposed potentially criminal actions, and at worst, they would have fulfilled their "public watchdog" role and helped keep the government on its toes.
On a similar note, the issue of the government's manipulation of science has been discussed in recent years regarding global warming (or, I should say, "global climate change"). In 2006, several government-employed climatologists alleged that their research results (in regards to their work on climate change) had been 'sufficiently altered in meaning' to paint a less urgent picture of the impending crisis. Sadly, there may be merit to Rep. Lampson's quote from the article - "This appears perhaps to be the tip of an iceberg."
Post a Comment