A recent toast to James Watson highlights a tolerance for bigotry many want excised from the scientific community.
Republican politicians have been trying to limit data to only those publicly available, but opponents say that would neglect private, yet important, information.
April 23, 2018|
ISTOCK, DRNADIGUpdate (April 25): Yesterday, Administrator Pruitt announced the proposal to limit data for developing rules at the EPA to only those publicly available. The proposal is open to a 30-day public comment period.
Emailed correspondence between the offices of Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt reveal a partnership to enact a proposal Smith has been trying to get into law. The initiative would limit the data used in making environmental policies to only those that are publicly available.
Supporters say the data restriction is intended to boost transparency at the agency, while opponents are concerned that certain studies—such as public health research that includes sensitive information—would be tossed out when crafting policies.
“This idea to restrict the use of science at EPA was hatched solely and worked on almost exclusively by political appointees who are doing everything they can to ensure that independent science doesn’t get in the way of policy decisions at the agency,” Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) spokesman Yogin Kothari tells E&E News. “It’s an effort to stack the deck in favor of industry that EPA is supposed to regulate.”
The policy is based on the so-called HONEST Act, passed by the US House of Representatives last year, but not yet considered by the Senate. “If we use a third party to engage in scientific review or inquiry, and that’s the basis of rulemaking, you and every American citizen across the country deserve to know what’s the data, what’s the methodology that was used to reach that conclusion that was the underpinning of what—rules that were adopted by this agency,” Pruitt told the Daily Caller News Foundation in March.
The collaboration between Smith and EPA was made public by Freedom of Information Act requests filed by UCS. In January, the documents show, Pruitt and Smith had a meeting, and in February, an email from a member of EPA’s policy office declared that Pruitt’s chief of staff “asked to have this [program] rolled out by the end of the month,” according to E&E News.
The policy could have wide-reaching effects, according to an EPA official who expressed concerns about data restriction. “The directive needs to be revised,” Nancy Beck, deputy assistant administrator in the EPA’s chemicals office, wrote to her colleagues, according to The Hill. “Without changes it will jeopardize our entire pesticide registration/re-registration review process and likely all [Toxic Substances Control Act] risk evaluations.” Of concern, she explained, is that companies will contribute “extremely valuable, extremely high quality” study findings to be used in policy decisions that do not get published.
It’s not clear if the policy is yet in effect. “These discussions are part of the deliberative process; the policy is still being developed,” EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman tells The Hill.
April 23, 2018
When the government makes policy that affects the public,, the public has a right to know what data is being used to make that policy. Secret data makes secret policy? No wonder our regulatory environment is not trusted.
April 23, 2018
We should only use publically funded data to support public policy. Why is it so hard to believe that private organizations (NGOs, etc.) skew data to benefit their agendas?
April 26, 2018
Either the Wall Street Journal of The Scientist are twisting the facts, perhaps a new practice in contemporary science. The WSJ clearly indicates that the new policies of the EPA are: 1- not to accept conclusions where the raw data and methods are not available, and 2- not to accept results that other scientists cannot reproduce. Regardless of political orientation, both rules have been for a long time the corner stone of modern science. As an older scientist and frequent reviewer, I always insist in seeing the data as well as the conclusions. Indeed, many articles, some reviewed by The Scientist and other publications, have reached the wrong conclusions which were naively accepted by the scientific community. Fortunately, after some years dubious scientist analyzed the data and discovered serious flaws in the interpretations. Any scientist that have problems with that policy must be a voodoo scientist. That papers that cannot be reproduced are unacceptable, protects science from becoming a demagogues’ territory. According to those opposing these new rules, Lysenko must be considered a real scientist, rather than a pseudoscientist political charlatan. I would advise the writers of The Scientist and other “influential journals,” to remove their political hat and wear the scientist hat where only cold facts should be considered, regardless of the likes or dislikes of whoever is the xxxxxx in place (xxxxx can be substituted by your favorite nemesis).