Expose Anti-gun Junk Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter DC
  • Start date Start date

DC

Moderator Emeritus
Subject: Oppose CDC-Funded Junk Anti-Gun Science

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org


(Thursday, April 1, 1999) -- The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) is considering a very important rule. If we win this,
we can expose all the phony science used to justify many
restrictions on firearms ownership.

This rule would directly impact on the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC). The CDC has often helped to finance anti-gun 'junk
science.' Many of these findings have found their way into popular
medical journals-- such as the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA) and the New England Journal of Medicine-- and
from these sources, into the mainstream media.

Unfortunately, the research behind their data seldom gets
turned over to the public for validation by other researchers.

Adoption of the rule would force the Federal government to turn
over all the data and research behind the "studies" used to support
Federal intervention in our private lives.

BUT COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN THIS MONDAY, APRIL 5.

See the attached letter, then send your letter or e-mail your
comments. Below is contact information.

F. James Charney, Policy Analyst
Office of Management and Budget
Room 6025, New Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20503
Email comments to: fcharney@omb.eop.gov
Phone number: 202-395-3993.

***** sample letter *****

April 1, 1999

Mr. F. James Charney, Policy Analyst
Office of Management and Budget
Room 6025, New Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20503

Dear Mr. Charney:

Last year, Senator Richard Shelby included a provision in the
Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY 1999 (PL 105-277) that would allow
public access to raw data from research studies funded by the
Federal Government through grants and agreements with research
universities and other institutions.

To implement this new law, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) published in the Federal Register on February 4, 1999 a
proposed revision to OMB Circular A-110 and requested public
comments on that revision.

I am writing to express our strong support for the Shelby
provision.

The new law is of critical importance to the American public.
For the first time the public would be able to obtain, through the
Freedom of Information Act, the raw data collected and analyzed
under federal research grants and agreements. Instead of being
presented with only the conclusions of research studies, the public
would be able to obtain for the first time the basis for those
conclusions.

The importance of this provision and its ramifications for the
American public cannot be overstated. The Federal government funds
a significant portion of all the research conducted in this country.
The results of this research have affected almost every aspect of
American life, from government regulations to the public's general
understanding of major public and social policy issues, including:

* Social policy decisions on diverse issues such as the family,
education, crime, drugs, and guns;

* Environmental, health and safety regulations affecting business
and the American public on a day-to day basis;

* Economic policy decisions on issues such as tax rates, the
Federal budget, and government spending.

Without the ability to obtain the raw data from the research
studies used to support these policy and regulatory decisions, the
public cannot independently judge for itself the validity of the
decisions. The public deserves to know the basis upon which the
government makes decisions and have the ability to determine for
itself whether these conclusions and the resulting policy decisions
are warranted.

The need for this legislation is underscored by the growing
regulatory burden and the complexity of existing rules. Each year,
the Federal government considers over 4,000 regulations. The total
regulatory burden for the country is now estimated at over $600
billion. Unless businesses and others impacted by these rules are
able to access the research data supporting the government's
findings, they will be severely limited in their ability to
understand the basis of the proposed rule and engage in a meaningful
debate.

I urge you to move expeditiously to implement the new law in a
manner that reflects the rights of the American public and allows
the public the broadest possible access to federally funded research
data. Put simply, the taxpayers who paid for the research should be
able to see it.

Sincerely,



------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
You need to call,fax or e-mail by Monday 4/5/99..

Help get CDC (Center for Disease Control) out of the gun policy process

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Great stuff, DC. I just faxed off my comments. This provision is essential in a society where each administration tends to fund public policy research which supports it's own conclusions. Only by access to the raw data can we hope to keep junk science conclusions out of the mainstream.

On a practical note, I can say that these comments *are* taken seriously at the Analyst level. While a Federal supervisor may override public sentiment, he does so at some political risk. Send your comments today!!
Rich
 
Rich..
Yep, this goes beyond guns too.
How much Federalization has occurred due to bogus science?
Remember the ALAR scare(Wash State apples), global warming, etc?
Hiding data and studies from peer review is how the Clinton admin (and VP Gore) haved rammed so much regulation down our throats.

Basing public policy upon selected data is criminal and is contrary to the scientific method.....something that offends me to no end.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Wasn't there also a recent Supreme court ruling to the effect that 'expert' witness testimony must be based on sound/recognized professional practice in the area of expertise? In other words, no more shopping for a self-proclaimed 'expert' (read crackpot) with a 'theory' that supports your position - if they don't have legitimate credentials and practice in a manner that is generally recognized as sound and consistent with good practice within thier discipline or profession, they aren't admissable. As I recall, the intent was to get 'junk science' out of trial proceedings. Let's hope it comes to pass in real life. M2
 
Back
Top