Although science and the law both deal with evidence and uncertainty, they approach these issues in ways that are different enough that a courtroom is generally a lousy place for determining the status of a scientific field. Nevertheless, so many aspects of our society now have a foundation in the sciences—medical care, policy, education, etc.—that science inevitably bumps up against the law quite often. One of the more striking instances of this occurred last week, as an Appeals Court handed down a ruling on greenhouse gasses that was largely overlooked because it happened to come down in the same week that the Supreme Court tackled health care law.
The decision is long on legal details, but there are some important lessons about science and its role in formulating policy that are worth drawing out.
Failing on legal grounds
We'll get the legal background out of the way first. The case is the latest in a long line of decisions about whether the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that the EPA regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Back in the Clinton administration, several states banded together to sue the EPA, arguing that the CAA required that it take action. By the time the case had made it to the Supreme Court, the Bush administration's EPA was arguing (I'm obviously simplifying here) that greenhouse gas emissions were just too complicated to be regulated.
Read 20 remaining paragraphs | Comments
DIGITAL JUICE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank's!