SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
In an "unprecedented" move that critics say will "undermine independent science," amplify the voices of those representing the fossil fuel industry, and put public health at risk, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt on Tuesday signed a directive that bars scientists who have received federal grants from serving on the EPA's advisory boards.
"Pruitt doesn't want to listen to a word from anyone who isn't in the pocket of corporate polluters."
--Michael Brune, Sierra Club Justifying the new rule, which will take effect immediately, Pruitt suggested that the research of scientists who have received federal money lacks objectivity and gives off "the appearance of conflict."
But as Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), noted in a statement responding to the directive, Pruitt doesn't apply this same standard to oil industry-funded scientists, whose input he eagerly courts.
"The suggestion that federal research grants would conflict with advisory board work is frankly dishonest," Rosenberg concluded. "Pruitt is turning the idea of 'conflict of interest' on its head--he claims federal research grants should exclude a scientist from an EPA advisory board but industry funding shouldn't."
Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune echoed Rosenberg's critique, arguing that the directive shows "Pruitt doesn't want to listen to a word from anyone who isn't in the pocket of corporate polluters."
If the EPA chief did listen to and act on the advice of those who shun Big Oil cash, he would realize that his "policies are disastrous for the health of our kids and our communities," Brune added.
As Common Dreams reported earlier this month, Pruitt first floated the idea of barring recipients of EPA grants from the agency's advisory boards at an event hosted by the right-wing Heritage Foundation.
"It's all consistent with a hostile takeover of science-based policymaking."
--Michael Halpern, Union of Concerned ScientistsWhile Pruitt didn't unveil the names of appointees to the EPA's Science Advisory Board who will replace scientists receiving agency grants, an unofficial list obtained by the Washington Post includes "several categories of experts--voices from regulated industries, academics and environmental regulators from conservative states, and researchers who have a history of critiquing the science and economics underpinning tighter environmental regulations."
Michael Halpern, program manager of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS, argued in a blog post Tuesday that while Pruitt's directive is extremely dangerous, it is not at all surprising, given his pro-fossil fuel track record.
"It's all consistent with a hostile takeover of science-based policymaking: those with true conflicts of interest are exerting control over not only staff positions but also the independent entities who are there to provide science advice," Halpern concluded. "Without public protections that are fully informed by independent science, more people will die and get sick, and our quality of life will suffer. We should do all we can--including challenging the new directive in court--to prevent administrator Pruitt from excluding independent scientific advice from the work of the EPA."
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
In an "unprecedented" move that critics say will "undermine independent science," amplify the voices of those representing the fossil fuel industry, and put public health at risk, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt on Tuesday signed a directive that bars scientists who have received federal grants from serving on the EPA's advisory boards.
"Pruitt doesn't want to listen to a word from anyone who isn't in the pocket of corporate polluters."
--Michael Brune, Sierra Club Justifying the new rule, which will take effect immediately, Pruitt suggested that the research of scientists who have received federal money lacks objectivity and gives off "the appearance of conflict."
But as Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), noted in a statement responding to the directive, Pruitt doesn't apply this same standard to oil industry-funded scientists, whose input he eagerly courts.
"The suggestion that federal research grants would conflict with advisory board work is frankly dishonest," Rosenberg concluded. "Pruitt is turning the idea of 'conflict of interest' on its head--he claims federal research grants should exclude a scientist from an EPA advisory board but industry funding shouldn't."
Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune echoed Rosenberg's critique, arguing that the directive shows "Pruitt doesn't want to listen to a word from anyone who isn't in the pocket of corporate polluters."
If the EPA chief did listen to and act on the advice of those who shun Big Oil cash, he would realize that his "policies are disastrous for the health of our kids and our communities," Brune added.
As Common Dreams reported earlier this month, Pruitt first floated the idea of barring recipients of EPA grants from the agency's advisory boards at an event hosted by the right-wing Heritage Foundation.
"It's all consistent with a hostile takeover of science-based policymaking."
--Michael Halpern, Union of Concerned ScientistsWhile Pruitt didn't unveil the names of appointees to the EPA's Science Advisory Board who will replace scientists receiving agency grants, an unofficial list obtained by the Washington Post includes "several categories of experts--voices from regulated industries, academics and environmental regulators from conservative states, and researchers who have a history of critiquing the science and economics underpinning tighter environmental regulations."
Michael Halpern, program manager of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS, argued in a blog post Tuesday that while Pruitt's directive is extremely dangerous, it is not at all surprising, given his pro-fossil fuel track record.
"It's all consistent with a hostile takeover of science-based policymaking: those with true conflicts of interest are exerting control over not only staff positions but also the independent entities who are there to provide science advice," Halpern concluded. "Without public protections that are fully informed by independent science, more people will die and get sick, and our quality of life will suffer. We should do all we can--including challenging the new directive in court--to prevent administrator Pruitt from excluding independent scientific advice from the work of the EPA."
In an "unprecedented" move that critics say will "undermine independent science," amplify the voices of those representing the fossil fuel industry, and put public health at risk, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt on Tuesday signed a directive that bars scientists who have received federal grants from serving on the EPA's advisory boards.
"Pruitt doesn't want to listen to a word from anyone who isn't in the pocket of corporate polluters."
--Michael Brune, Sierra Club Justifying the new rule, which will take effect immediately, Pruitt suggested that the research of scientists who have received federal money lacks objectivity and gives off "the appearance of conflict."
But as Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), noted in a statement responding to the directive, Pruitt doesn't apply this same standard to oil industry-funded scientists, whose input he eagerly courts.
"The suggestion that federal research grants would conflict with advisory board work is frankly dishonest," Rosenberg concluded. "Pruitt is turning the idea of 'conflict of interest' on its head--he claims federal research grants should exclude a scientist from an EPA advisory board but industry funding shouldn't."
Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune echoed Rosenberg's critique, arguing that the directive shows "Pruitt doesn't want to listen to a word from anyone who isn't in the pocket of corporate polluters."
If the EPA chief did listen to and act on the advice of those who shun Big Oil cash, he would realize that his "policies are disastrous for the health of our kids and our communities," Brune added.
As Common Dreams reported earlier this month, Pruitt first floated the idea of barring recipients of EPA grants from the agency's advisory boards at an event hosted by the right-wing Heritage Foundation.
"It's all consistent with a hostile takeover of science-based policymaking."
--Michael Halpern, Union of Concerned ScientistsWhile Pruitt didn't unveil the names of appointees to the EPA's Science Advisory Board who will replace scientists receiving agency grants, an unofficial list obtained by the Washington Post includes "several categories of experts--voices from regulated industries, academics and environmental regulators from conservative states, and researchers who have a history of critiquing the science and economics underpinning tighter environmental regulations."
Michael Halpern, program manager of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS, argued in a blog post Tuesday that while Pruitt's directive is extremely dangerous, it is not at all surprising, given his pro-fossil fuel track record.
"It's all consistent with a hostile takeover of science-based policymaking: those with true conflicts of interest are exerting control over not only staff positions but also the independent entities who are there to provide science advice," Halpern concluded. "Without public protections that are fully informed by independent science, more people will die and get sick, and our quality of life will suffer. We should do all we can--including challenging the new directive in court--to prevent administrator Pruitt from excluding independent scientific advice from the work of the EPA."