We’ve become accustomed to having a president who lies blatantly, but leadership at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has reached a new low in enabling such duplicity—and has done so in a way that endangers health and safety.
This year has seen the usual flood of reports documenting unsafe, unhealthy and illegal conditions in global supply chains, but there is a growing body of research that highlight the underlying root cause of these conditions: the business model and sourcing practices of the international “brands” that sell us our clothing, electronics, sports shoes and so much more.
Recent pieces include a New York Times Magazine issue on what’s happened in the 400 years since a ship carrying more than 20 enslaved Africans arrived in Virginia.
The “Scientific Integrity in Federal Agencies” hearing featured repeated reminders that scientific integrity is a bipartisan issue; that administrations from both parties have suppressed and distorted evidence; and that public health suffers when agencies disregard or sideline science.
Examples of federal agencies ignoring and suppressing science are alarmingly common these days, but Adam Federman’s investigation into the Department of the Interior’s actions regarding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is especially breathtaking.
The latest resource list on articles and reports describing unsafe and illegal working conditions in global supply chains producing consumer goods for the world economy. There are the usual tales of exploitation and woe, but also growing campaigns to recognize and end sexual harassment of women workers, and recognition that it is precisely the sourcing practices of the international “brands” that lead to abusive conditions in global supply chains.
The Title X family planning program has long provided voluntary, high-quality, evidence-based care to clients with low incomes, but its ability to uphold standards of care and its own programmatic requirements is under threat.
A July 17 hearing on “Scientific Integrity in Federal Agencies” will be a great opportunity to hear more about the Scientific Integrity Act and ways to protect science from political interference.
If a study’s published in a journal but no one reads it, does it make an impact? A new POLITICO investigation suggests that might be a relevant question when it comes to studies from USDA’s Agricultural Research Service.
Recent pieces address reparations, conditions in detention centers for migrant children, a new executive order on federal advisory committees, and more.