Americans have to appreciate the work and well invested US Dollar that exists to improve the quality of life of American.+

...The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (click here) appoints a Scientific Advisory Board, whose charter calls for its members to "provide independent advice and peer review to EPA's Administrator on the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues." In addition to my doctorate in chemistry, I spent my last sabbatical getting a master's degree in legal studies so I could better understand links between science and policy in battling problems such as air pollution and climate change. I want to make sure that useful scientific information does not just stay in academic journals, but gets communicated to those who must make decisions that determine the type of world our kids will inherit. I thought my background might make me a good candidate for the agency's advisory board.

I did not get appointed to the board. I still have plenty of teaching and research to keep me busy, but I'm worried that the agency is no longer looking for objective advice about science. The agency's new policy limiting the membership of its scientific advisory bodies - plus a look at who was appointed to be its "independent" science advisors - convince me that Administrator Scott Pruitt is actually working to limit the influence of facts and science in agency decisions....

...Pruitt argues his new policy will ensure that science advisors are "independent from EPA." However, a few years ago a federal appeals court rejected this logic in a case where industry groups called for similar limits on experts who advise federal agencies. The court reasoned that if a federal agency "were required to exclude from peer review committees all scientists who somehow had been affiliated with the department, it would have to eliminate many of those most qualified to give advice." I agree. Scientists' taxpayer-supported research should make our advice more valuable to the agency.

Finally, it's instructive to see who the agency did appoint to the advisory board. Among the new appointees, many come from the very industries the Environmental Protection Agency regulates. And, one of the few academics appointed to the board has said that our air is "a little too clean" for children's health. These appointments suggest that a political agenda to deregulate rather than a desire for objective scientific input motivated the agency's selection of science advisors....

That is pure unadulterated crazy. Certifiable.