Wiki-правительство

20. Thomas McGarity and Wendy Wagner, Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research (Harvard University Press, 2008).

21. J. B. Ruhl and James Salzman, “In Defense of Regulatory Peer Review,” Washington University Law Review 84 (2006): 1–61.

22. Ibid., p. 25.

23. Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (Rogers Commission), Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (Washington: GPO, 1986), appendix F.

24. Sheila Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers (Harvard University Press, 1990), p. 61; см. также: Joshua B. Bolten, “Issuance of OMB’s ‘Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,’” Memorandum M-05–03, Office of Management and Budget, December 16, 2004.

25. Government Accountability Office, “Federal Research: Peer Review Practices at Service Agencies Vary,” GAO/RCED-99–99 (1999).

26. См., например, следующие публикации: “Peer Review: EPA Needs Implementation Procedures and Additional Controls,” GAO/IRCED-94–98 (1994); “Peer Review: Reforms Needed to Ensure Fairness in Federal Agency Grant Selection,” GAO/PEMD-94–1 (1994); “Peer Review: Compliance with the Privacy Act and Federal Advisory Committee Act,” GAO/GGD-94–48 (1991); “Federal Advisory Committees: GSA’s Management Oversight and GAO Comments on Proposed Legislative Amendments,” GAO/T-GGD-89–1 (1998); “Federal Advisory Committee Act: General Services Administration’s Management of Advisory Committee Activities,” GAO/GGD 89–10 (1988); “University Funding: Information on the Role of Peer Review at NSF and NIH,” GAO/WED-87-87FS (1987). См. также: Lars Noah, “Scientific ‘Republicanism’: Expert Peer Review and the Quest for Regulatory Deliberation,” Emory Law Journal 49 (2000): 1034–1083.

27. Mohammed Kashef, “Scientific Peer Review in the Public Sector,” 2005 (dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/peerreview_dec05.pdf [October 2008]).

28. Bolten, “Issuance of OMB’s ‘Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.’”

29. American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Another Decline for EPA R&D in 2009: AAAS R&D Funding Update on R&D in the FY 2009 EPA Budget” (www.aaas.org/spp/rd/epa09p.pdf [October 2008]).

30. Information Quality Act, P. L. 106–555 app. C, 114 Stat. 2763A-154 (2000); “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies,” republication, 67 Federal Register 8452 (February 22, 2002).

31. Ibid.

32. Stephen M. Johnson, “Junking the ‘Junk Science’ Law: Reforming the Information Quality Act,” Administrative Law Review 58 (2006): 37–80.

33. Mooney, The Republican War on Science, p. 103.

34. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch, pp. 69–76; Wendy E. Wagner, “The ‘Bad Science’ Fiction: Reclaiming the Debate over the Role of Science in Public Health and Environmental Regulation,” Law and Contemporary Problems 66 (2003): 67–71; Sidney A. Shapiro, “Politicizing Peer Review: The Legal Perspective,” in Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research, edited by Wendy Wagner and Rena Steinzor (Cambridge University Press, 2006).

35. Bolten, “Issuance of OMB’s ‘Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,’” p. 6.

36. Alan Charles Raul and Julie Zampa Dwyer, “‘Regulatory Daubert’: A Proposal to Enhance Judicial Review of Agency Science by Incorporating Daubert Principles into Administrative Law,” Law and Contemporary Problems 66 (2003): 7 (утверждая, что принципы Дауберта должны применяться к административным органам, они считают, что «оставлять этот вопрос на рассмотрение судей будет менее уважительным, но зато более важным с позиции науки»)см. также Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993).

37. E-Government Act of 2002, H. R. 2458/S. 803, section 206.

38. Beth S. Noveck, “The Electronic Revolution in Rulemaking,” Emory Law Journal 53 (2004): 433.

39. Daniel C. Esty, “Environmental Protection in the Information Age,” New York University Law Review 79 (2004): 172.

40. См.: Stuart W. Shulman and others, “Electronic Rulemaking: A Public Participation Research Agenda for the Social Sciences,” Social Science Computer Review 21 (2003): 163–64; Code of Federal Regulations 36, sec. 219.9.

41. Government Accountability Office, “Electronic Rulemaking: Efforts to Facilitate Public Participation Can Be Improved,” GA-03–901 (2003).

42. Cary Coglianese, “Citizen Participation in Rulemaking: Past, Present, and Future,” Duke Law Journal 55 (2006): 954.

43. Orly Lobel, “The Renew Deal,” Minnesota Law Review 89 (2004): 342; for a citation, см.: Paul S. Berman, “Global Legal Pluralism,” Southern California Law Review 80 (2007): 1155.

44. См., например: David Schoenbrod, Saving Our Environment from Washington: How Congress Grabs Power, Shirks Responsibility, and Shortchanges the People (Yale University Press, 2006).

45. Breaking the Logjam (www1.law.nyu.edu/conferences/btl/index.html [October 2008]).