EPA’s proposed policy change could restrict research
The Environmental Protection Agency is considering a major change to the way it assesses scientific work, a move that would severely restrict the research available to it when writing environmental regulations.
Under the proposed policy, the agency would no longer consider scientific research unless the underlying raw data can be made public for other scientists and industry groups to examine. As a result, regulators crafting future rules would quite likely find themselves restricted from using some of the most consequential environmental research of recent decades, such as studies linking air pollution to premature deaths or work that measures human exposure to pesticides and other chemicals.
The reason: These fields of research often require personal health information for thousands of individuals, who typically agree to participate only if the details of their lives are kept confidential.
The proposed new policy — the details of which are still being worked out — is championed by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has argued that releasing the raw data would let others test the scientific findings more thoroughly. “Mr. Pruitt believes that Americans deserve transparency,” said Liz Bowman, an EPA spokeswoman.
Critics, though, say that Pruitt’s goal is not academic rigor, but to undermine much of the science that underpins modern environmental regulations governing clean water and clean air. Restricting the application of established science when crafting new EPA rules could make it easier to weaken or repeal existing health regulations, these people say.
The proposal is “cloaked in all of these buzzwords, in all of the positive things that we want to be for: ‘science,’ ‘transparency,’ ” said Dr. Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, an independent blog that monitors scientific journals and exposes errors and misconduct. While Oransky said he agreed that it was critical to hold the scientific process accountable, he said he believed Pruitt’s intent was to inject doubt into areas of public health where none exists. “Data he doesn’t like will get disqualified,” Oransky said.
The pending EPA policy would have implications for much of what the agency touches, whether it is new rules addressing climate change or regulations for pesticides and protecting children from lead paint.
“This affects every aspect of environmental protection in the United States,” said David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health under President Barack Obama. Michaels, now a professor at George Washington University, called the plan “weaponized transparency.”
Pruitt laid out his plans for the new policy in an interview last week with the Daily Caller, a conservative news site.