SAN DIEGO – A growing number of retired regulatory scientists are advocating for a new approach to regulatory risk management. These former government-employed scientists, bitter over their experiences in the past, believe that the traditional risk management process is flawed and ineffective. They propose an alternative strategy known as “adversarial regulation,” which seeks to use mass tort litigation to change the behavior of companies and individuals rather than relying on laws and public policies.
The concept of adversarial regulation gained traction after its success in the battle against Big Tobacco. These retired scientists argue that the regulatory risk management process is easily undermined by industry lobbyists, who often prioritize their own interests over public safety. By bringing companies to court through mass tort litigations, advocates of adversarial regulation aim to force them to take notice and comply with safety regulations.
However, there are concerns about the democratic nature of this approach. Critics point out that scientific disagreements, legal shortcuts, and the influence of special interests can compromise the integrity of the process. Moreover, some industries may exploit this strategy to gain a competitive advantage or hinder their rivals.
Leading the charge for adversarial regulation is Bernard Goldstein, a former EPA Assistant Administrator for Research and Development. Goldstein, along with a network of retired regulatory scientists, has been working closely with tort law firms to push their agenda forward. They believe that scientific debates should be settled in courtrooms, even if non-specialists on juries make decisions that can affect product safety and the existence of companies.
However, Goldstein has faced criticism for his involvement in using research to support lawsuits against companies. His actions have raised concerns about conflicts of interest and the scientific integrity of the adversarial approach.
Critics of adversarial regulation argue that it undermines the regulatory risk management process and democratic decision-making. They believe that decisions about public safety should be based on sound scientific evidence and the expertise of regulatory risk managers, rather than being left in the hands of litigators and juries.
Overall, the debate over the merits of adversarial regulation continues. Supporters see it as a powerful tool to hold companies accountable, while detractors worry about its potential consequences and lack of democratic oversight. The complex intersection between science, politics, and litigation remains a contentious issue in the realm of regulatory risk management.
David Zaruk, editor of The Firebreak, raises these concerns and highlights the need for a balanced and evidence-based approach to regulatory risk management. He emphasizes the importance of understanding how research and data can be influenced by politics and personal motivations.
As the discussion unfolds, it becomes clear that finding the right balance between protecting public safety and ensuring a fair and democratic decision-making process is a challenge. The future of regulatory risk management will depend on navigating these complexities and addressing the flaws in the current system.