Guidelines by which the ISRB wil accept projects for review:

The Independent Science Review Board will need to make judgments on which projects to reject or accept for review. Below we present criteria we will use when first screening projects. Three types of projects that we would likely consider for review and three we would likely reject follow these.

Criteria:

1. Science: The issue being brought to the ISRB is one of scientific information rather than of political values or policy recommendations. Such scientific areas might include: geology, biology, chemistry, or economics.

2. Timeliness: Depending on the complexity of the issue, and/or volume of documents involved, the ISRB process of considering the issue for acceptance, assembling a panel, and producing a draft and final report may take one to six months or more. The decision-making timeline must be such that the final ISRB report would be timely for decision-making.

3. Legality: The question being asked of the ISRB must be one that can legally be considered in the specific decision-making process.

4. Existing information: The ISRB will only review issues for which conflicting scientific information has already been gathered and submitted to the decision making body. The ISRB does not exist to research an issue for a decision maker or party to the decision making process. The ISRB does not undertake original research. Instead, the ISRB reviews existing scientific information for methods, reliability, and relevance to the decision making process.

5. Public significance: The ISRB is more interested in requests that will inform public decisions that are significant to Lane County residents and public process than requests that have only minor or narrow implications.

6. Expertise: The ISRB will only accept a project when it is able to put together a review panel with expertise in the area of review.

Examples of Projects we would likely review:

1. A County Commissioner has scientific evidence from Santomon saying glyphosate/Roundup is safe and scientific evidence from Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides stating that both the active ingredient and the formulation are toxic. Why do the two sides differ, and where does the weight of evidence lie? This issue fits all six criteria above (assuming timeliness is met).

2. The County Commission requests review of a traffic study by KSJ Traffic showing that traffic volume will increase by 7% on Coburg Road at intersection X, if the proposed shopping center is built. The 7% estimate conflicts with the estimates by Connection Specialists, who say there will be a 15% increase. What is the problem? This is a contentious issue and we have two sets of evidence to evaluate. This issue fits all of the criteria, if we are able to assemble a panel with expertise in this area (assuming timeliness is met).

3. We are asked by a City Councilor to evaluate two competing views of drug court. Those favoring the establishment of drug court have presented research claiming that it is a cost effective program for dealing with those who otherwise would be sentenced to incarceration and that it results in lower rates of recidivism. Those opposing the establishment of drug court have presented a series of studies claiming it is ineffective and results in higher rates of recidivism. What does the existing scientific evidence tell us about drug court with regard to costs and rates of recidivism? This issue fits all six criteria (assuming timeliness is met).

Examples of Projects we would likely reject:

1. In a recent presentation to the commission, EconoSolutions argued that the commission should channel revenues into developing mass transit rather than improving city thoroughfares. What are the long-term consequences of each alternative to the economic health of the community and its citizens? The issue, as formulated, is too broad. Although one could find places in this broad issue to which science could be applied, that is not specified in the question (criterion 1). There do not seem to be two or more bodies of conflicting scientific evidence that have been gathered and submitted to the decision making body (criterion 4). We may not be able to assemble a panel with expertise in this area (criterion 6), and of course it must meet the timeliness criterion.

2. Lane County has received the first $10 million of its share of the Federal Fair Chance Program fund recently established by Congress. If we invest this in early childhood care and K-6 education, how can we decide how to partition it between these two for maximum benefit in the short term and long term? This issue, as formulated, is too broad. Although one could find places in this broad issue to which science might be applied those issue are not specified in the question (criterion 1). There do not seem to be two or more bodies of conflicting scientific evidence that have been gathered and submitted to the decision making body (criterion 4). We may not be able to assemble a panel with expertise in this area (criterion 6), and of course it must meet the timeliness criterion.

3. Lane County proposes to extend the Urban Growth Boundary in South Eugene. Many citizen groups are opposed because such an extension will destroy precious woodlands home to many organisms and also negatively impact the Amazon watershed. Are they correct? The issue, as formulated, seems to be one of values and not one of science (criterion 1). There do not seem to be two or more bodies of conflicting scientific evidence that have been gathered and submitted to the decision making body (criterion 4). Note that questions might be asked in this context that are scientific, for example, about the impact on water quality. Assuming the county has submitted a body of scientific evidence accompanying its proposal, the citizen's group would need to assemble a body of scientific evidence before the ISRB would attempt a review. The project, of course, must meet the timeliness criterion.