The Proposed National Institute for the Environment Should Be Challenged

As a result of educational research conducted during the past year regarding the proposed National Institute for the Environment (NIE), evidence suggests that implementing such an agency threatens human liberty, objective inquiry and private enterprise. Despite appearances, NIE is an unnecessary, costly, bureaucratic proposal lacking scientific integrity. NIE's chief claim for its usefulness, as stated in their brochure, is that "lawmakers and regulators did not have enough scientific information" about acid rain before the passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act.

'Scientists' listed on the 'NIE Board' should have known about and honestly mentioned the existence of the largest single study ever ordered by Congress. $500 million in taxpayer money funded this exhaustive, ten year scientific study (NAPAP). This study revealed that there was NO CRISIS.

If scientific concerns are about human health, why is the already-funded National Institute of Health incompetent to provide 'scientific foundations' for our public policies? Our existing agencies could drastically "improve the scientific basis for making environmental decisions" by replacing pseudo-scientific criteria used to assess risk with authentic criteria.

As Professor Aaron Wildavsky noted in his paper "Toxic Torts: Is There Any There There?", "The strongest argument against the criteria used to regulate chemical exposures in the U.S. today is that there are no health benefits."

Pseudo-scientific criteria are based upon five pillars of sand. These NON-scientific pillars are that:

(1) the dose-response is linear,

(2) proof of a negative is required,

(3) correlations are causations,

(4) men are cancer-prone rodents,

(5) all risks are equal.

NOT ONE of these premises is scientifically valid.

"America needs good science, not government science. Knowledge is best generated outside of centralized, political institutions," Fred L. Smith, Jr. correctly observes. As President of Competitive Enterprise Institute, he wrote: "The NEA hasn't helped the arts; the NIE and NBS won't help the environment." [CEI UpDate August 1995]

It is noteworthy that 'NIE Director' Richard Benedict is the architect of the Montreal Accord banning CFCs. Astrophysicist Dr. S. Baliunas of Harvard is among the many climatologists urging a reexamination of this ban and the lack of scientific evidence to support such a massive public policy.

'NIE Director' Dorothy I. Height (National Council of Negro Women) has stated that she had not known that 'NIE' had listed her as a member of a Board of Directors.

The unknowns behind this proposed creation merit serious scrutiny before yet another federal agency is added to the tax burden.

Floy Lilley, J.D. is a Texas lawyer at The University of Texas at Austin, where she is Program Manager of the Clint W. Murchison Sr. Chair of Free Enterprise. She also serves on the Board of Scientific Policy Advisors, American Council on Science and Health.

Lilley earned a Bachelor of Science Degree from the College of Charleston, Charleston, S.C. and a Juris Doctor degree from St. Mary's University School of Law, San Antonio, Texas.