UPDATE: Barak Obama has selected Lisa Jackson to head the EPA.
It's being reported that President-elect Barack Obama is considering Robert Kennedy, Jr. as head of the EPA. For those of you who don't know, RFK, Jr. is an anti-vaccinationist, who made his unscientific views on vaccines known in this Rolling Stone piece. We should all be very worried about putting someone that is anti-science as the head of what should be a science-based agency.
Weren't we promised change?
Here are some suggestions about what to do about this potential appointment.
UPDATE: There is now a Facebook causes group to oppose an RFK, Jr. appointment to head the EPA.
Here is a great summary of what vaccines do for us in terms of relieving suffering and death.
And, yes, Amanda Peet is amazing, but don't tell my wife I said so. Maybe she can run the EPA?
DISCLAIMER: I am a vaccine zealot. Unlike many of my generation, my family still acutely remembers what it was like to be terrified by the prospect of polio. My father still walks with a limp and my uncle lost the use of his legs due to that disease. I cannot describe how excited I am that I do not have to worry about those things for my daughter or that she won't have to suffer through chicken pox and the risk of shingles like me. BUT, people like Jenny McCarthy and RFK, Jr. threaten the herd immunity that protects those for whom the vaccines do not impart long term immunity. Acceptance of their views would mean a return to my father's childhood.
Comments
Josh Witten | 11/07/08 | 13:37 PM
Michael White | 11/07/08 | 16:41 PM
Michael White | 11/07/08 | 16:47 PM
His demeanor is not exactly inclusive, being that his most famous quote is "f*** Republicans" - and that in a public interview for a prominent magazine, so it isn't like he didn't want it to be known. For the 46% of Americans that did not vote for Obama this kind of guy in a key position is not a good sign. So maybe he's more like the Dick Cheney of Democrats than he is a Rove. Whatever it is, I am not a fan of partisan piranhas no matter how they vote.
Hank Campbell | 11/07/08 | 17:08 PM
If Emmanuel attempts to cut Obama's Cabinet out of the decision-making process and hand everything over to a secretive group of ideologue lawyers, then he will be Dick Cheney. But Cheney's set a high bar for secrecy and usurpation of the decision-making process that Emmanuel will be hard-pressed to meet.
Every president has needed (in Lyndon Johnson's favorite words) a 'nut-cutter' in order to actually get something done in a town full of piranhas. At this point, I'm willing to withhold judgment on the choice of Emmanuel - I don't think it's obvious that this is a bad choice.
Regarding RFK - for those of you who haven't read Orac's well-documented post about RFK's anti-vaccine nonsense, it's here
Every president has needed (in Lyndon Johnson's favorite words) a 'nut-cutter' in order to actually get something done in a town full of piranhas. At this point, I'm willing to withhold judgment on the choice of Emmanuel - I don't think it's obvious that this is a bad choice.
Regarding RFK - for those of you who haven't read Orac's well-documented post about RFK's anti-vaccine nonsense, it's here
Michael White | 11/07/08 | 18:00 PM
Not that I would want to deviate from the militant drumbeat on this, but the guy is a key lawyer for Natural Resources Defense Council. He has both the pedigree and the environmental credibility to manage a bureaucracy and make environmentalists feel like he is a friend. His personal stance on vaccines isn't going to have much of an impact on policy at the NIH and it's irrelevant in an EPA role.
I get why the scienceblogs crowd needs to go to war yet again, it's why they exist and Bush will soon be gone, but why are we helping them on this one? There are a lot worse choices that Obama could be considering that would pass muster by simply having no opinion on vaccines. I don't see how that would be a great thing for the environment though.
I get why the scienceblogs crowd needs to go to war yet again, it's why they exist and Bush will soon be gone, but why are we helping them on this one? There are a lot worse choices that Obama could be considering that would pass muster by simply having no opinion on vaccines. I don't see how that would be a great thing for the environment though.
Hank Campbell | 11/09/08 | 01:34 AM
The problem with RFK, Jr. is that he now has a documented history of putting ideology before the science. My main problem with the Bush administration was not that I disagreed with them. It was that they put ideology ahead of science when discussing topics like the environment, health care, or education. Excusing sloppy thinking because we like the conclusions is a precedent that makes me uncomfortable.
Furthermore, it is not necessarily irrelevant to his potential EPA role. The current anti-vaccine stance is that problems are caused by contaminants in the vaccines, which is very similar to Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. If RFK, Jr. is highly receptive to this argument for vaccines, then he is likely to receptive to it in a broader context.
Furthermore, it is not necessarily irrelevant to his potential EPA role. The current anti-vaccine stance is that problems are caused by contaminants in the vaccines, which is very similar to Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. If RFK, Jr. is highly receptive to this argument for vaccines, then he is likely to receptive to it in a broader context.
Josh Witten | 11/10/08 | 10:33 AM










People here will recall that I have said Obama is not going to be any huge fan of science just because he is a Democrat. With hope this will be the worst mistake he makes and I turn out to be wrong.