The Canadian “science court” model proceedings was made. Ten d e s oarticioated in the hear-
ns necesSHy for a -&tific debate. Mlnisuies of Agriculture and Health, Thid, the issue was concrete rather they included a provincial environmen- than abstract; therefore, the parties had tal agency, an industry group, another a substantial interest in the outcome and pesticide manufacturer, a users p u p . were prepared to s p e d the resources and two individuals. Funds were avail- necessary to support a full inquiry into j - able to support those parties who could the issues. Fourth, the adversary prodemonstrate the need. cess enabled the parties to explore and The board established a process that challenge the opposing viewpoints Disputes over the scientific basis of en- emphasized fairness yet allowed for hUy. vironmental regulatory decisions, if re- scientific dialogue. The procedures solved at all, often are senled in a were not overly legalistic and the use of Contrast with the EPA scheme No similar process for exploring ispiecemeal fashion. A recent Canadian available scientific literaNre was persues of environmental science exists in experience with a “science court” may mitted without major barriers. The ARB announced its conclusions the United States. The Science Advisuggest a model for resolving some of in a comprehensive report that ad- sory Board and ttK Science Advisory these disputes better. The Canadian Ministry of Agricul- dressed the broad regulatory and &A- Panel (SAP) of the Environmental Proture banned the use of alachlor, a broad nical issues. The report is well written tection A g m y were formed to help respectrum herbicide manufactured by and thoughtful, and the section on risk solve similar disputes. But the ARB Monsanto Company, &r receiving ad- acceptability should be required read- process differs in many significant ways. To mention a few: The ARB was vice from the Ministry of Health and ing for all who regulate pesticides. Welfare that alachlor p o d an unacThe board recommended that the convenedtoresolveonlyooedispute.It ceptable risk of cancer. Monsanto in- registration of alachlor be restored with enjoyed conSiderably more indepenvoked a process available in Canada conditions. Among other things, it dence than its U.S. counterpans (for and requested the establishment of a stated that the w t y of any pesti- example, it set its own priorities and scientific board to review the decision cide should be based on its safety, hired its own staff). It also had time to and to advise the minister. The Alachlor merit, and value and on that of any sub review a single topic at some length. Review Board (ARB)was formed in stitute pesticide. It concluded that there The SM,in w,may review 20 November 1985 and issued its report in was no valid scientific basis for distin- pestiCide decisions in a single year. I !hit&the Canadian process offers a November 1987. The ARB was the first guishiig between the carcinogenic po such scientific review board to be con- tenual of alachlor and its primary sub useful model for helping to resolve imvend in Canada. stirUte, metola~Aor.(At press time, the portant scientific and regulatory disThe board was given a broad man- minister had not yet responded to these putes in the United Statex The availdate to inquire into the subject matter of recommendations.) ability of a thorough, credible, and the registration. Monsanto set the Although this science review board unbiased report on a significant quesagenda for the inquiry by specifying process is not without its problems, I tion could be of considerable assistance nine issues-including both regulatory believe that on ~JKwhole it was very as a reference and a ?&e for those and technical auestions-the c m ~ a n ~succssful. Among the Droblems were making regulatory decisions at all govte.ndedtorai le level produre. tn particular, the formalities A better regulatory scheme sometimes complicated a full exchange The ARB was composed of five of scientific views. Richard M . Do&, Ph. D. , is presidenf In my view the process worked well of R. M . Dowd & Company, environmembers appointed by the minister: four independent scientistsand a retired for four major reasons. Fm,the man- mpnral ami scienrificpo/icyconsulrants iudee who served as chairman. A for- date was mite broad. and the agenda in Hlrthinnron, D.C. Dowd. former er*&hearing pro~esswas established. was not the &stry. EPAs Sahce AdviThe partieswere represented by legal This allowed the ARB to follow lines of sory Board. served us u witness for -0unse1: certain rules of evidence were inquiry that the ministry might not have Momanto during the ARBpmeedinoq ~~
- ... .. -
.
ond, the judge; as chair, maintained both a fair oroceeding and the c o d -
