The author makes a reasoned case for promoting more scientifically based decision-making at the EPA.1 Look closely at his case studies, however, and a clear pattern emerges. He chooses only to take issue with those EPA decisions that restricted corporate interests without, in his opinion, sufficient scientific basis. No mention is made of situations where regulations or enforcement are more lax than scientific evidence would demand.
As "damning" evidence, the author quotes a 1992 report that states that "EPA science is perceived by many people, both inside and outside the agency, to be adjusted to fit policy." If adjusting evidence to fit an agenda is a practice the EPA should be damned for, then it is a practice that the author of this opinion should be damned for as well.
While it seems reasonable that the EPA should rely on the best scientific data available in its decision-making, this author's ...
