When expert networks stonewall basic questions and suppress data in contested medical fields, legislative subpoenas can be a targeted transparency tool rather than mere political theater. This reframes 'keep politics out of science' by distinguishing oversight to surface evidence from meddling in methodology. It proposes a narrow, process-focused role for Congress to compel disclosure without dictating clinical conclusions.
— It offers a governance template for handling captured or opaque medical domains where self-regulation fails.
by Sharon Lerner
2025.10.09
76% relevant
The article reports EPA finalized a PFNA toxicity assessment in mid‑April but hasn’t released it, even as it seeks to rescind PFAS standards. This is the kind of agency stonewalling the 'Subpoenas for Scientific Transparency' idea targets: when expert networks or offices suppress key evidence, legislative oversight can compel disclosure without dictating conclusions.
2025.10.07
76% relevant
The article frames HHS and NIH as obstructing congressional oversight and highlights a DOJ investigation into EcoHealth, aligning with the call for aggressive legislative tools when expert networks and agencies withhold evidence in contested medical domains.
by Debbie Cenziper and Megan Rose, ProPublica, and Katherine Dailey, Medill Investigative Lab
2025.09.19
50% relevant
Both cases center on using legislative oversight to force transparency in contested medical domains; here, senators Scott and Gillibrand demand the FDA disclose which banned foreign manufacturers received import exemptions and for which drugs, echoing the call to compel evidence surface when self‑regulation fails.
Kaj_Sotala
2025.09.11
65% relevant
Both argue that hiding or controlling evidence is counterproductive: the article warns that suppressing statistics misleads your own side and damages credibility, while the matched idea proposes formal oversight (subpoenas) to force disclosure when expert networks stonewall. Each points to transparency as the superior strategy in contested domains.
by Tim Golden
2025.08.29
55% relevant
Like legislative subpoenas used to surface contested medical evidence, this case shows adversarial legal processes (civil discovery under Judge Daniels) can pry loose facts that contradict entrenched agency conclusions—here, undermining the FBI’s 'unwitting' assessment of Omar al‑Bayoumi and Fahad al‑Thumairy.
Arnold Kling
2025.08.20
60% relevant
Kling argues food, housing, health, and education subsidies avoid rigorous study because entrenched beneficiaries block scrutiny; this echoes the broader claim that when expert or stakeholder networks stonewall evidence, outside oversight is needed to surface data and evaluate programs.
Joseph Postell
2025.08.20
50% relevant
Both emphasize Congress’s underused capacity to shape national policy through committees and oversight. Postell notes relevant committees can 'steer presidential conduct,' aligning with the argument that congressional tools (like subpoenas) can still compel executive‑branch transparency and action.
Scott
2025.08.14
55% relevant
Aaronson signed an open letter asking OpenAI to clarify whether it has abandoned its nonprofit mission—an example of civil-society pressure for transparency in an opaque, high-stakes domain, paralleling calls for targeted oversight to surface evidence and governance facts.
Jesse Singal
2025.08.05
100% relevant
The suggestion to subpoena Johanna Olson-Kennedy, Rachel Levine, and Marci Bowers over youth gender-medicine evidence and WPATH guideline controversies.