June 6, 2008
Candidates for Pesticide Panel Needs to Focus on Science
Activists influence which scientists are appointed by Gov. Gregoire to serve on a pesticide panel
Heather Hansen
Guest Comment
When a governor's appointee quits before he starts, it should be a sign that something is terribly wrong.
The Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking (PIRT) panel should do what its name describes - track and report on pesticide incidents. From its creation in 1989 until recently, it did just that, so quietly that most people didn't know it existed.
Then changes in personnel at the Department of Health and a few panel members caused a slow but noticeable decline in effectiveness. Meetings became chaotic. Often, the agenda wasn't completed. Members argued and public participation was dramatically curtailed.
The PIRT panel consists of representatives from six state agencies, the University of Washington, Washington State University, the Washington Poison Center, a toxicologist and a member of the public.
The legislature created it to ensure that state agencies responsible for pesticide regulation coordinated their investigations and reporting in a timely manner.
PIRT meetings used to be technical reviews where the agencies exchanged information and discussed data. More recently, they had turned into forums for activist rhetoric. When the two seats on the panel that are filled by governor appointments expired, Gov. Gregoire looked for someone to bring much-needed scientific expertise and balance back to the troubled panel.
The toxicologist position needs someone who is actively involved in scientific research. The governor appointed a world-renowned scientist whose research focuses on developing models to better measure the effects of chemicals on the human body. EPA is interested in his research. But because he had once worked for industry, anti-pesticide activists cried so loudly and attacked so vigorously, he quit before his first meeting.
Activists targeted him because they didn't like who he used to work for. They didn't like that the lab he works for now accepts grants from private industry, just like nearly every other lab and university research facility in the country.
Activist groups across the county are using similar tactics to get scientists removed from a variety of panels. The reality is that any scientist who has worked for a public university or a public lab has most likely accepted grant funding from private industry. In fact, a university faculty member trying to earn tenure is rewarded for bringing in private grants.
When a professional takes time away from his career to volunteer for public service, and then is vilified by activists and urban media, it creates a disincentive to volunteer.
What the skirmish really shows is mismanagement and politicization of what should be a technical panel.
The focus was on the new scientist, but little attention was paid to the former toxicologist on the panel who serves as board member and fundraiser for an anti-pesticide advocacy group.
While sitting on the PIRT panel, the former appointee lobbied for proposals to dramatically restrict pesticide use. Regardless of how you feel about pesticides, it's not rational to believe that he was unbiased.
He has a right to his opinions, and his actions in support of them, but not when he is supposed to be serving as an impartial technical advisor.
Now the governor must appoint someone else to fill the vacancy. After the way the last appointee was treated, why would anyone volunteer to serve?
As long as activists get their way by hassling people, they are likely to increase their level of rhetoric.
The PIRT panel's problems have been well documented. The governor's first choice would have helped it refocus on science rather than politics. Can she find another candidate who can bring balance, or is the PIRT panel doomed to remain dysfunctional?
Heather Hansen is executive director of Washington Friends of Farms and Forests in Olympia, Wash.
