There are major shortcomings in the procedures that EPA uses to evaluate potential conflicts of interest for its Science Advisory Board (SAB) members, according to a General Accounting Office (GAO) report released last week.

Established in 1978, SAB consists of more than 100 technical experts from academe, industry, public health, and environmental groups. SAB panels provide independent scientific and engineering advice to the agency.

But the EPA staff who supports SAB have "not routinely ensured that the panelists' financial disclosures are complete and that it has obtained sufficient information to evaluate potential conflicts of interest," the report says.

In addition, staff follow-up on SAB members' financial information is inadequate, the report says. For instance, some panelists did not identify all sources of income or did not provide complete information on the standardized federal financial disclosure form. GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, says that EPA staffers need to answer such questions as whether board members owning stock in chemical companies might gain financially from the advice they provide to EPA if that advice affects regulatory decisions on chemicals produced by those firms.

GAO also faulted the board staff for selecting SAB panel members before completing review of--or even receiving--their financial disclosure statements. The National Academies, in contrast, does not make final selections for its panels until staff members have reviewed and evaluated possible conflicts of interest and biases of proposed members.

Donald G. Barnes, SAB staff director, says EPA is developing new procedures to address the problems identified by GAO. The agency did a pilot run of those new procedures when it selected an SAB panel to review the benefits of lowering the amount of arsenic allowed in drinking water, he says.

[Previous Story] [Next Story]

Chemical & Engineering News
Copyright © 2001 American Chemical Society