I can buy the size argument for a Fortune 500 organization.  But we're talking an agency so small that the entire staff fits into a relatively small meeting room.   Every individual in the CSB will report directly to the appointee at some point and work one-on-one in discussions that will be incredibly detailed and technical.  I can't even begin to imagine how frustrating that will be for the investigative staff to have to drop back to basic chemistry principles every time they need to explain something to their boss.   Triaging and allocating the woefully inadequate financial resources of the CSB requires direct firsthand knowledge of the subject matter.   It's the CHEMICAL Safety Board, and when I looked on Drew U's Art History and Political Science web sites, Chemistry was not among the required courses, so let's hope it was in the general requirements or that she at least took it as an elective.

I have no doubt that there are dozens of far-better qualified candidates who could bridge the gap between technical abilities and leadership in a way that will let the CSB finally live up to its full (and quite awesome) potential.   Some of them are probably reading this post on DCHAS-L right now, in fact.   Both skills are necessary but neither alone (as we have with this appointment) is sufficient.     They nailed it over at the NTSB: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/speeches/CHart/Pages/bio_hart.aspx  that's for sure.  Yes, the CSB appointee may work out just fine and surprise us - and I hope she does.  But we should have something better than hope - namely, confidence.  I hope this works out, but I am not confident it will.   

As far as the appointee's credentials as an attorney - I have no doubt that she must be absolutely top-notch in her profession.  There is no way one could rise to a star role at a tobacco company without being one skilled and tenacious attorney.   However, in my personal opinion, there is a vast difference between living up to the laudable legal ethics of defending anyone accused of any crime, no matter how heinous, and making a personal moral choice to use one's vast natural talents to enable a corporations' profit machine which depends on *recruiting new victims* to continuously replace the 1/3 of its customers who will die a premature and horrid death.   In my book, that's not defending a client, it's aiding and abetting.

I would personally be hard-pressed to find an example of someone whose choice of employer and personal ability to rationalize the direct consequences of their actions makes them more UNFIT to lead the premier bastion of health, safety, and worker protection.

Obviously, the appointment is probably a done deal and, barring some political turf war or unexpected development, the appointee will be confirmed.    But I think it's the kinds of questions I've raised that we as a community should be asking -  should we have realized that the CSB was imploding at the top and seen our our chance to seize the moment and influence the administration to consult with groups such as ours in developing a candidate list?    Either way, we should embrace Peter's comments which remind and inspire us that it's healthy to explore our professional and scientific ethics every so often.

Rob