Science

Senate Committee Votes In Favor of EPA Secret Science Reform Act

Environmental activists favor secret science

|

EPAlogo
EPA

Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed the EPA Secret Science Reform Act. The Act would limit the agency to using scientific studies whose data are publicly available in devising its regulations. This would enable other researchers to independently evaluate the data and its interpretation. In March, ScienceInsider reported:

"Many Americans are unaware that some of the EPA's most expensive and burdensome regulations, such as its proposed ozone rules, are based on data that not even the EPA has seen," said Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), the head of the House science committee, in a statement today. The secret science bill, he stated, "ensures that the decisions that affect every American are based on independently-verified, unbiased scientific research, instead of on secret data that is hidden behind closed doors."

Yesterday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted to move the bill forward. As The Hill reported:

"EPA has a long history of relying on science that was not created by the agency itself. This often means that the science is not available to the public, and therefore cannot be reproduced and verified," Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the bill's sponsor, said at a committee hearing.

"What this bill is trying to accomplish is to make sure that we strengthen the scientific information the EPA uses to make regulations, guidance and assessments," he continued.

Congressional Democrats and environmental activists strenuously oppose the bill arguing that it would deny the EPA access to the latest and best science when it comes to devising regulations to protect the health and safety of Americans. For example, Dr. Andrew A. Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists issued this statement:

"It's regrettable that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would support such a counterproductive bill. The Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 would make it nearly impossible for the EPA to develop policies, guidance or regulations informed by the best available science. The bill bans the EPA from issuing any regulations or scientific assessments if it has not publicly disclosed the data that it used to craft the rule or assessment. The legislation also limits the EPA to only using scientific studies with 'reproducible' results.  The legislation may sound reasonable, but it's actually a cynical attack on the EPA's ability to do its job.

"This bill would make it impossible for the EPA to use many health studies, since they often contain private patient information that can't and shouldn't be revealed. Studies based on confidential business information would also be off-limits.  Studies of human exposures to toxics over time and from a variety of locations likely cannot be reproduced.  Neither can meta-analyses, looking at the results of hundreds of scientific studies to assess their conclusions. Such studies provide critical scientific evidence in many fields of research. This legislation wasn't designed to promote good science—it was crafted to prevent public health and environmental laws from being enforced.

I do not doubt the cynical motives of some supporters of this bill, but I also do not doubt the equally cynical motives of its opponents. Rosenberg is right that some good studies that use confidential information might be excluded. The solution, however, is to spend more time devising study protocols that do not rely on confidential information. One should keep in mind just how shockingly bad a lot of epidemiology studies are and how lax peer review is. Which then brings up the question: Is regulatory science an oxymoron?

Of course, President Obama has threatened to veto the bill should both houses of Congress pass it.

NEXT: A. Barton Hinkle on the Good Muslims Around You

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This bill would make it impossible for the EPA to use many health studies, since they often contain private patient information that can’t and shouldn’t be revealed.

    It is trivially easy to anonymize health care data.

    It’s done all the time.

    I can write you a SQL script to generate a random ID for each patient in about five minutes after you show me the source table.

    1. In fact virtually all research involving human subjects requires that the researchers safeguard the anonymity of their subjects as a condition of being able to do the research in the first place. (I know–I’ve had the training just to do online satisfaction surveys).

      There’s plenty of prevarication to go around here.

    2. I work for Big Pharma and we only identify subjects by age, sex, race, and country. If necessary, we anonymize by leaving out country and only providing an age range (=65, for example).

    3. Yeah, that’s an obvious bullshit issue. Obviously, the personal information of study participants has to be protected, along with other forms of truly confidential information. But the key here is the protest against “reproducible results.” Yeah, that’s a bitch of a standard, isn’t it?

  2. Keep in mind the EPA didn’t have any power until Congress gave it some. Congress is completely within its rights to require whatever it wants for rule-making even to the point of eliminating the agency. This is about power. The left, which is firmly ensconced in the bureaucratic agencies, wants those agencies to have as much free rein as possible with as little oversight as possible.

    1. Just like with natural rights, the mere fact that these agencies did not exist or have power before an enlightened congress granted it to them, didn’t mean those agencies and powers didn’t exist. They just weren’t recognized by tyrannical governments.

      1. Thank you for providing me with what will probably be the most perverted display of logic I’ll see today.

        1. I think that was sarcastic humor.

          1. I know. I was just marveling at how twisted it was.

            1. This is what progs actually believe.

              1. If you can just claim that rights preexist governments, then you can claim anything preexists anything. The problem with believing in magic is that there are no bounds to it. What or who is the arbiter of what counts as a natural right?

      2. Wow. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. Impressive work, Gojira-san.

    2. Also keep in mind that the EPA was Nixon’s innovation and that GHWB said that the Clean Air Act Amendments were one of his greatest achievements.

  3. Does this mean they won’t consider banning miscegenation based on my independent research into how destabilizing it is to the social fabric, since it utilizes the private information of a variety of couples? I submitted it to the gov’t like two years ago and haven’t heard anything back.

    1. Did you tie it in to global warming? If not, even the power-hungry EPA is likely to concede that miscegenation is beyond their remit.

  4. Wow, I’m shocked that this bill has made it this far. Shoddy science is what health scares are made of. They are the EPA’s bread and butter. I’d never though they’d let a bill like this see the light of day.

    1. Don’t worry – the CDC is still good to go on the ‘secret science’ front.

      1. And of course you can expect Obama to veto it if it gets to his desk.

  5. On a brighter note, the EPA, unlike Congress, probably reads its regulations before implementing them.

    1. This was an attempt at sarcasm, right?

      1. I’m shocked — SHOCKED! — you would think that!

  6. The Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 would make it nearly impossible for the EPA to develop policies, guidance or regulations informed by the best available science.

    Why do Republicans want to deny the EPA access to the best available science money can buy?

    1. You don’t think murky MIT hokum is worth billions? Fucking civilians…

    2. Why do Republicans want to deny the EPA access to the best available science tax-payer money can buy?

      Fixed that for ya.

      1. Its not *taxpayer money*. The government prints it so its all the government’s money – they just graciously allow us little people to hold some. Like giving a little kid a buck to go buy ice cream.

    3. -1,000,000,000,000 Temperature Data Adjustments

  7. This would enable other researchers to independently evaluate the data and its interpretation.

    To what end? The agency is going to do what it wants.

    1. Oh, they will always try to do end-runs around the laws, but after a good dressing down by the courts they at least shift their efforts elsewhere for a while.

    2. “other researchers” is just a euphemism for ‘DENIER!’ or ‘WITCH!’.

  8. And another thing.

    How much did that logo cost? Or was it done by one of the employees’ kids? At least put some evil monster eyes in the upper leaves!

    1. Grand Moff’s rule for government logos: every logo for a Federal agency should depict a fist tightening its grip around whatever symbol is appropriate for that agency.

      1. BZZZT!

        “A” fist? What *color*?

      2. You know who else was quick with the fists?

        1. Bruce Lee?

        2. Billy Blanks?

          *Be Proud! Live Strong!*

        3. Judge Fang and Dr. X?

        4. Peter North?

      3. Too confusing. Not every agency can be a fist gripping a wallet or dildo.

        1. How about a jackboot with the agency logo stomping on a face?

  9. This is specifically meant to address the reliance on “secret” temperature readings provided by other governments, right?

  10. As most of you are scientifically illiterate and barely closeted partisan Republicans, it will no doubt be lost on you just how shockingly abusive of power these Republican attempts to rig science are. What matters is that Republicans are doing the bidding of certain industries, and that’s all they’re doing. It should go without saying that there is nothing libertarian about politicians working to allow industries to harm people and the environment without paying for it.

    So this is not a mystery. What is a mystery is whether Ron Bailey’s mealy-mouthed false equivalencies are employed only so he’s not driven away by the pitchfork people. Corrupting science is the province of one political party and not the other.

    1. So if the Republicans weigh the same as a duck…

      1. …..then……

        1. They should float.

          But which one us got turned into a newt?

    2. D-

    3. Consensus is not science. If you were scientifically literate in the slightest, then you would understand this. But alas you’re a scientifically illiterate moron who thinks he’s a genius.

      1. I know, I know. Science is whatever you say it is, regardless of the consensus of actual scientists. Because Galileo.

        1. The scientific method has been broken down for you many times. If you weren’t such a dem hack retard, it might have sunk in by now.

          1. I don’t think you understand what the “scientific method” (otherwise known as scientific inquiry, or just science) is.

            1. Mmmmmm……That’s some good derp!

            2. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/…..ificmethod

              So easy, a 4th grader can understand it. But it still eludes you. It would be funny, if you didn’t think that your profound stupidity should grant you the license to execute us for disagreeing with you.

              1. Yes, you have a 4th grader’s understanding of science and no more. I know this.

            3. Feynman on scientific method.

              Now, how does a person decide that a guess theory is or isn’t contradicted by observation? By making the observations themselves or looking at the outcome of someone else making the observations.

              But how do you know the observations are correct? How do you know the analysis was properly done? You either check your/their work, or get other people to check your/their work. You redo the experiments other people reported doing and see if you get the same results.

              Scientific papers that keep their data or methods secret aren’t amenable to this sort of checking, and time and time again such secrecy has been associated with people committing fraud. In almost every instance where a mistaken conclusion has persisted for a long time in the popular mind or in institutions, we see those bars to reproduction being used to prevent people from checking the quality of the work.

              Methinks the EPA officials are screaming like stuck pigs because they are very aware that they are using pseudoscience to ‘justify’ the regs they want to enact for emotional reasons, and they are afraid to have to do things the proper, harder way.

            4. The Royal Society’s motto is Nullius in Verba.

              It was founded by Francis Bacon and others to promote knowledge of the natural world through observation and experiment. That is science.

              From that motto alone, it should be obvious that “secret science” is not science.

              1. You’re taking Republican buzzwords as literal. Stop it.

          2. Designate

            This is all too important for the scientific method. We can’t risk peer review and open discussion, precious time will be lost and we must act now!

            1. And reproducible results?! That’s not SCIENCE!!!11!!!!

              1. Holy fuck. A ‘scientist’ complaining about a reproducibility requirement is beyond weapons grade stupid. It’s even beyond Tony-level stupid. No data, no fucking regs, asshats. And that asshole testifying needs to have his degrees revoked.

    4. Open data, reproducible results = rigged science

      Got it. Lysenko would be proud of you.

      1. Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.
        -Albert Einstein

    5. Every time – literally every time – anyone connected to government in any manner whatsoever wants you to accept a conclusion without seeing all the underlying information that went into generating the conclusion, assume bad faith.

      Every time.

      1. Actually, that’s mostly true of anyone. While there are reasons to keep some things secret, refusal to produce data about scientific findings is a bad sign. For instance, we don’t let businesses make unsubstantiated claims about health benefits, for the most part. If you say your cream cures cancer, you’d better have a valid study proving that.

        No one who gives a crap about science thinks “reproducible results” is a nonissue. Reproducibility is right smack in the middle of what science is all about. “I don’t know why cold fusion doesn’t work for you.”

        1. Do the laws of physics change on your stove?!?!

          1. +1 grit

        2. Why do you need reproducible results? It’s not like there have ever been hoaxes before.

    6. I came here to complain about the damn anti-science Republicans. I should have known someone like Tony would beat me to it.

    7. So do you actually have any criticisms of this particular legislation? Because requiring that public policy be based on publicly available data seems like a no-brainer.

  11. “One should keep in mind just how shockingly bad a lot of epidemiology studies are and how lax peer review is. Which then brings up the question: Is regulatory science an oxymoron?”

    It’s certainly important to remember a couple of things here.

    1) The EPA isn’t the only thing protecting us from the adverse effects of pollution.

    Show by a preponderance of the evidence to a jury of your peers that someone’s pollution harmed you or your property, and you can protect yourself. The fear of that scares the bejesus out of polluters, actually.

    2) Having complied with EPA regulations actually provides polluters cover in court that they wouldn’t enjoy otherwise.

    “Regulations were followed” may not absolve a polluter from guilt in front of a jury, but it does add something substantial to their defense.

    We live in a pluralistic democracy, and that means the EPA isn’t only there to represent the interests of environmentalists.

    1. You can’t seriously think torts alone can handle pollution. Even if such a system were theoretically possible, the richest industries on earth, I think, might have somewhat of an advantage in such a system.

      What is your definition of an environmentalist?

      1. A follower of the new religion.

        http://www.hawaiifreepress.com…..igion.aspx

      2. “You can’t seriously think torts alone can handle pollution.”

        Yes that’s exactly what I said.

        “The EPA isn’t the only thing protecting us from the adverse effects of pollution” and “torts alone can handle pollution” mean the exact same thing.

        That’s actually not as bad as yesterday when you told RC Dean you were a biological parent because you’re a step-parent.

        Do you know how retarded you are?

        1. My point, which obviously eluded you, is that gay people often have functioning reproductive systems and biological children. Hence a gay couple could raise a child who is the natural offspring of one, the stepchild of the other.

          Your anti-regulatory dogma is getting in the way of your having the most informed opinion on how best to mitigate environmental harm. Tort law has played some small role in reducing pollutants, but it is dwarfed by the achievements of regulations. It’s obviously true that tort doctrine is quite inadequate to deal with pollution, because it is extremely difficult to gather the evidence that someone’s pollution directly caused someone else’s harm, not to mention harm done outside of the sphere of private property. Even if evidential requirements are relaxed, etc., tort law’s role in protecting the environment will obviously remain limited.

          Care to answer my question about what you consider an environmentalist? Do you suggest that government consider the interests of those who want to harm other people and property without paying for it? Because I have news for you–it pays more attention to those interests than just about any other.

          1. Wow, ‘Tony’, as someone who actually works in the environmental industry, I can’t even begin to express just how breathtakingly wrong you are. What you just wrote is about the wrongest shit since wrong came to Wrongtown.

          2. It’s obviously true that tort doctrine is quite inadequate to deal with pollution, because it is extremely difficult to gather the evidence that someone’s pollution directly caused someone else’s harm, not to mention harm done outside of the sphere of private property.

            Not in cases with actual pollution and actual evidence.

            Want to prove that the toxic chemicals someone spilled on to my property caused me harm? Easy. Straightforward.

            Want to prove that trace gas releases 1000 miles away “caused” my asthma? Well, that’s really tough.

            But this is a feature, and not a bug, of the tort system.

            1. But but but CO2 is the most dangerous pollutant known to man. It’s more dangerous than arsenic or cyanide!!!

            2. “Want to prove that trace gas releases 1000 miles away “caused” my asthma? Well, that’s really tough.

              But this is a feature, and not a bug, of the tort system.”

              It’s really easy to prove, too.

              Phase I Environmental Reports are the first thing every property buyer orders during due diligence.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Phase_I_environmental_site_assessment

              When your insurance company offers you a policy, it’s the first thing they look at.

              1. This leads to the other point I was making above, which is that because we live in a pluralistic democracy, the regulators aren’t only about protecting the environment for environmentalists. The regulators are also about protecting industry from environmentalists.

                And what stupid Tony doesn’t understand is that real environmentalists are often more angrier at the EPA (and other regulators) than industry is because of that. The EPA gives cover to industry!

                It works that way in all federal agencies. The Fish and Wildlife Service isn’t just there to protect California’s endangered species list sea otters from the fishing industry. It’s also there to protect the uni/sea urchin industry from California’s endangered sea otters!

                The BLM isn’t just there to protect wild Mustangs in Nevada. It’s also there to protect cattle ranchers from wild Mustangs eating the grazing fields they rent out. So they send Mustangs to the glue factory.

                The National Park Service isn’t just there to protect the last of the wild buffalo herd in Yellowstone–they’re also there to protect local ranchers’ cattle from wild buffalo–so they kill hundreds of wild buffalo every year.

                Point is that federal regulators are protecting the very industries they’re supposed to be regulating, and there are far better ways to protect the environment and our natural resources.

                Look at the Nature Conservancy.

                1. Well, they only kill the buffalo with a horrible disease. I know someone who had brucellosis (yes, I know that’s rare) and it practically drove her literally insane before some doctor figured out what it was, because it caused all sorts of balance and dizziness issues for her.

          3. Tony|4.28.15 @ 5:07PM|#

            ? I know some myself.

            …..

            R C Dean|4.28.15 @ 6:01PM|#

            Not biological children, you don’t.

            …..

            Tony|4.28.15 @ 7:04PM|#

            Yes I do. Or is the idea of a step-parent completely foreign to you?

            …..

            https://reason.com/blog/2015/04…..nt_5263134

            Tony thinks step-parents are biological!

            lol

            1. Tony thinks step-parents are biological!

              That’s still not as dumb as his economic beliefs. Anyone who believes in central planning is dumber than a creationist.

            2. Well, what if the step-parent were hit by a bus?

          4. “Care to answer my question about what you consider an environmentalist?”

            I’ve been through this with Tony at least a dozen times over the last year. Let’s just skip to the end.

            If saving the environment requires capitalist solutions, then Tony would rather the environment went to hell. That makes Tony a phony environmentalist.

            He doesn’t really care about the environment at all–he just thinks it’s a convenient excuse to push democratic socialism and diminish capitalism. And if the environment really does go to hell, it won’t be because of climate change deniers and capitalists.

            It’ll be because phony environmentalists like Tony convinced enough people that the only real solutions to our environmental problems require us to commit economic suicide.

            Go screw yourself, Tony. You’re a bigger threat to the environment than carbon dioxide.

            1. Better all the Rhinos die out than we allow local villages to have an economic stake in their survival. It’s funny how leftists can understand the lunacy of this logic when it comes to the drug trade, and only the drug trade.

              1. Well, let’s say we started taxing pollution INSTEAD OF income, capital gains, and corporate profits?

                Those taxes are the heart of redistributive socialism. If we got rid of them and taxed pollution INSTEAD, we’d live in a much better world–from an environmentalist perspective–and it wouldn’t retard economic growth.

                So is Tony in favor of doing that?

                The correct answer is no.

                If saving the planet requires capitalism, then Tony would rather the polar bears went the way of the Dodo Bird.

                Tony is a phony environmentalist.

                1. Dogma projection, it never gets old. I’m a pragmatist. If capitalism were adequate to the task, then yay capitalism. It’s not, obviously, but you’re such a mindless cheerleader for it that not only don’t you question its inadequacies, you make up silly bullshit to maintain your fantasy.

    2. Show by a preponderance of the evidence to a jury of your peers that someone’s pollution harmed you or your property, and you can protect yourself. The fear of that scares the bejesus out of polluters, actually.

      As an actual scientist in the environmental consulting and remediation industry, I can attest that this is absolutely the case. Businesses who have contaminated sites really don’t worry too much about the regulatory agencies, but they live in terror of being sued.

      1. This is all common sense.

        Regulatory pollution control: cronies get together over many years to come up with regulations which have little basis in reality and everything to do with keeping the regulators employed and the businesses running.

        Individual pollution control: everyone harmed by pollution, whether it be particulates dirtying up clotheslines, houses, cars, or lungs, or sewage contaminating a water supply or killing fish, or toxic waste killing livestock, sues for damages and costs. The polluter may win the first few cases, but the complainants will pretty quickly combine arguments and facts and win, over and over again, and the polluter will die the death of a thusand cuts.

        Which would a polluter care about?

        1. “Regulatory pollution control: cronies get together over many years to come up with regulations which have little basis in reality and everything to do with keeping the regulators employed and the businesses running.”

          Not to mention that you can end up with regulations that actually protect the polluters.

          Regulations were followed!

          So what if your kids got cancer? The EPA said our levels were a-okay!

          And you can use that in court.

          The EPA is a threat to industry–especially smaller companies. But they’re also a cover for industry–especially larger and older companies.

          In addition, companies that can afford compliance without much difficulty and are facing competition from smaller companies with smaller scales don’t mind the EPA increasing the cost of compliance. The rent-seeking bastards want that.

  12. “Is regulatory science an oxymoron?”

    Is academic freedom in a government supported university an oxymoron?

    Is crony capitalism an oxymoron?

    Is social justice an oxymoron?

    Is…

    Here come’s the Judge…

  13. I often read science magazines and you’d be amazed how many in that community do not want to have to verify their findings. they have printed several articles against this bill and they always comment of how dare they require us to be able to show our work or be able to duplicate it. that is the problem many of us have with science today, it’s not a distrust of science its a distrust of scientist who think their work is unquestionable.

  14. So – the Science is Settled Secret.

    Got it.

    1. Republicans count on people not being able to think deeper than the buzzwords Frank Luntz comes up with.

      1. So, you are a Republican then? Good to know.

      2. This could be entertaining if it weren’t so sad. Did your parents have any children that lived?

        1. His parents didn’t have any biological children.

          1. You’re just saying that because he’s a script.

  15. The bill bans the EPA from issuing any regulations or scientific assessments if it has not publicly disclosed the data that it used to craft the rule or assessment. The legislation also limits the EPA to only using scientific studies with ‘reproducible’ results. The legislation may sound reasonable, but it’s actually a cynical attack on the EPA’s ability to do its job.

    If the EPA’s job is to make policy decisions with an utter lack of transparency and using non-science, then sure.

    Hint: the EPA shouldn’t even exist according to Article I, Section 8, much less be an executive branch department engaged in de facto legislating.

    1. Right?! Whose the fucking cynical one, here? People who want openness and transparency from a government agency that is largely unaccountable to voters, and one that has proven it will gladly trample over personal rights and tries to prevent due process? Or the cheese-dick from the Union of “Concerned” Scientists who wants the EPA to be able to make rules up as it goes regardless of evidence and the costs to those affected by it.

  16. Studies of human exposures to toxics over time and from a variety of locations likely cannot be reproduced.

    Then those studies are single data-point observations only, and the resulting conclusions should not be used to formulate theories, much less policy.

    It’s telling that disciplines with little political repercussion (quantum physics is a good example) hew closer to the classical scientific method. When policy is at stake, researchers are much more apt to bend rules. A great example is climate researchers using 17th Century oil paintings as evidence… and being congratulated by their peers for their inventiveness!

    1. Add to that, the EPA uses linear approximations for all exposure models. In other words, they’ll take an extreme case, miners exposed to high concentrations of radon over decades, and extrapolate risks down to ridiculously low exposure levels. Even when alternative research suggests that there is a threshold level below which risk is negligible, it gets ignored.

      1. NO THRESHOLD! LNT, BITCHES!!

  17. Center for Science and Democracy

    One of these things is not like the other. Oh wait, I forgot, the new Scientific Method is based on consensus. As long as at least 50.1% of “experts” agree, then SCIENCE!

    The legislation also limits the EPA to only using scientific studies with ‘reproducible’ results.

    Oh, the horror! Having to use studies that can actually be reporduced! Quick, someone help me to my fainting couch!

    1. Sorry, Tony’s already there.

      1. I think Tony actually got shut down on this one. He seems to have taken his toys elsewhere.

        1. You do NOT want to know what Tony does with those toys.

  18. What about registr’n of a pesticide under FIFRA? Technically each such licensure is an EPA regul’n. Does that mean that any trade secrets of the mfr. are blown open? One thing that would mean is that the 1st registrant of a new pesticide would in effect be doing the R&D for free for anyone who wants to copy it.

  19. It’s regrettable that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would support such a counterproductive bill.

    Transparency is counterproductive, you guys. Better to keep all scientific discovery secret and blindly trust the leadership of your betters.

    The legislation also limits the EPA to only using scientific studies with ‘reproducible’ results

    You mean it limits the agency to using things that result from actual application of the scientific method? THE. HORROR. What fucking mendacious pricks, these people are.

  20. If governments can go to war based upon “intelligence” that must remain secret, certainly it can promulgate regulations based upon secret “scientific” data.

    The reason for the scare quotes on “scientific” is that a finding is not genuinely scientific if it is not subject to independent verification and validation. Nullius in verba.

  21. This bill would make it impossible for the EPA to use many health studies, since they often contain private patient information that can’t and shouldn’t be revealed.

    Bullshit.

    It’s called “redaction”. You just remove all the Personally Identifying Information (PII in HIPAA speak) and keep a translation code that you don’t share with the EPA in case you need to later contact your study participants.

    I work as a sysadmin for an NIH funded group. We do that sort of thing all the time, because it’s just good information security practice to keep that sort of thing separated.

  22. The moment that I saw, “Union of Concerned Scientists,” I knew that the quote that followed was pure blather. Could there be a more phony, self-righteous, and egomaniacal group than that?

  23. Scientific papers that keep their data or methods secret are the equivalent of “this one weird trick”

    1. “this one weird trick” is how hookers refer to Tony.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.