In Defense of Regulatory Peer Review

August 2008
Citation:
38
ELR 10553
Issue
8
Author
J.B. Ruhl and James Salzman

Editors' Summary: Profs. J.B. Ruhl and James Salzman suggest that random peer reviews be conducted of regulatory agencies' reliance on scientific information in order to better inform regulators and the public of the nature of regulatory decisionmaking. Brian Mannix responds that the laws directing regulatory decisions often create distinctions that are too sharp and that the laws should either allow agencies more decisionmaking discretion or that discretion should be retained for Congress once agencies have conducted fact-finding. Rick Melberth and Gary Bass caution against overreliance on peer review, but acknowledge that the system suggested in the main article may help to collect useful data on existing agency practices.

J.B. Ruhl is the Matthews & Hawkins Professor of Property, Florida State University College of Law. James Salzman is a Professor of Law and the Nicholas Institute Professor of Environmental Policy, Duke University. They received valuable contributions on earlier versions of this work from Joan Magat, David Markell, Dan Tarlock, Wendy Wagner, and from participants in workshops at University of Notre Dame, University of Florida, and Florida State University. Adam Schwartz provided research assistance, and we thank our respective institutions for financial and other support. A version of this Article was originally published at 84 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1 (2006), and is reprinted with permission.
Article File