In Defense of Regulatory Peer Review
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.