Anybody know who this Marcus Peacock guy is?
Update [2005-6-2 14:13:59 by Dave Roberts]: Hm, he appears to be an OMB guy involved in measuring the effectiveness of scientific programs, which probably means you’ll be hearing the phrase “sound science” tossed around even more.
Also, this is not promising. Seems he was involved in the arsenic-in-drinking-water shenanigans back in 2001.
It has now come to our attention that in December of 2000 and January and February of 2001, various industries, persons, and organizations submitted information and documents to EPA transition team members setting forth their views on executive orders, rulemakings, including final rules, and lawsuits that should be reviewed by the new Administration.
…
We are also aware that two members of the core transition team for the EPA, Mr. John Howard and Mr. Marcus Peacock, now occupy senior positions at the White House and the Office of Management and Budget respectively. A third key transition team member, Mr. James Connaughton, represents in his private law practice one of the mining companies, ASARCO, Inc. that was advocating no change in the 1942 standard of 50 ppb for arsenic in drinking water.
Update [2005-6-2 14:21:17 by Dave Roberts]: Ah, looks like he was also involved in drafting the infamous study that justified Bush’s backpedaling on his promise to limit CO2 emissions. From the NYT:
None of the authors was a scientist. The team consisted of Cesar Conda, an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and now a political consultant; Andrew Lundquist, the White House energy policy director, who is now an energy lobbyist; Kyle E. McSlarrow, the chairman of Dan Quayle’s 2000 presidential campaign and now deputy secretary of energy; Robert C. McNally Jr., an energy and economic analyst who is now an investment banker; Karen Knutson, a deputy on energy policy and a former Republican Senate aide; and Marcus Peacock, an analyst on science and energy issues from the Office of Management and Budget. They concluded that Mr. Bush could continue to say he believed that global warming was occurring but make a case that “any specific policy proposals or approaches aimed at addressing global warming must await further scientific inquiry.”
Update [2005-6-2 14:31:7 by Dave Roberts]: All right, I’ll stop after this. Here’s what the guy does:
Speaking at a breakfast at the American Association for the Advancement of Science on February 6th, Office of Management and Budget official Marcus Peacock noted that the budget includes attempts to rate the effectiveness of R&D programs through something known as PART (Program Assessment Rating Tool). For example, DOD basic research is rated effective, the NSF Geosciences Directorate is rated moderately effective, but most of the programs fell under the “Results Not Demonstrated†category due to inadequate data. The experiment started with 20 percent of government programs this year and the goal is to rate them all by FY 2007.
And this is hilarious:
The Administration is once again going after earmarks – special projects inserted by Members of Congress – during the appropriations process. At a press conference, Office of Management and Budget Associate Director Marcus Peacock decried how this spending was distorting the President’s priorities and contributing to the lack of fiscal discipline. When asked whether the Administration was going to get serious and direct the agencies not to spend the earmarked funds, Peacock was non-committal.
