SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
As E&E News reported on Friday, Pruitt announced a push for "additional science reform" at the EPA during a closed-door meeting at the right-wing Heritage Foundation this week. (Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr/cc)
In Latest 'Alarming' Attack on Science, Pruitt Reportedly Moving to Restrict Use of Research in EPA Policy
"This is insane. If EPA rules are not based on science, what are they based on?"
Mar 17, 2018
A deeply unpopular plan by one of the Republican Party's most fervent climate deniers to restrict the use of scientific research in government rule-making isn't even advancing in the GOP-controlled Congress, but EPA chief Scott Pruitt appears to be moving to adopt it as official agency policy.
"It's just another excuse for Pruitt to really abrogate EPA's responsibility to protect human health and the environment."
--Yogin Kothari, Union of Concerned ScientistsAs E&E News reported on Friday, Pruitt announced a push for "additional science reform" at the EPA during a closed-door meeting at the right-wing Heritage Foundation this week.
According to attendees and others who spoke to E&E News, this "reform" effort is expected to resemble Rep. Lamar Smith's (R-Texas) legislative attempt to prohibit the EPA from using scientific data that isn't fully available to the public and "reproducible" in developing policy.
"The proposal may sound reasonable enough at first," explained The Intercept's Sharon Lerner in a summary of Smith's bill. "But because health research often contains confidential personal information that is illegal to share, the bill would prevent the EPA from using many of the best scientific studies. It would also prohibit using studies of one-time events, such as the Gulf oil spill or the effect of a partial ban of chlorpyrifos on children...because these events--and thus the studies of them--can't be repeated."
And while Smith's bill would restrict the EPA's ability to use certain kinds of crucial scientific research, it would "allow industry to keep much of its own inner workings and skewed research secret from the public, while delegitimizing studies done by researchers with no vested interest in their outcome."
Pruitt's reported plan to enshrine Smith's proposals in official EPA policy was met with alarm by scientists, former government officials, and environmentalists, who argued that it is yet another "dangerous" attempt to curtail the agency's ability to combat environmental degradation.
Betsy Southerland, a former senior EPA official who resigned last year in protest against Pruitt's fervent deregulatory agenda, characterized Smith's bill and Pruitt's apparent support for it as part of a deceptive effort to "paralyze rulemaking."
"It's another obstacle that would make it so hard and so difficult to go forward with rulemaking that in the end, the only thing that would happen--in the best case you would greatly delay rulemaking; in the worst case you would just prevent it. It would be such an obstacle you couldn't overcome it."
Reacting to reports of Pruitt's plan on Friday, Yogin Kothari of the Union of Concerned Scientists called the expected move "alarming" and concluded: "It's just another excuse for Pruitt's EPA to really abrogate EPA's responsibility to protect human health and the environment."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A deeply unpopular plan by one of the Republican Party's most fervent climate deniers to restrict the use of scientific research in government rule-making isn't even advancing in the GOP-controlled Congress, but EPA chief Scott Pruitt appears to be moving to adopt it as official agency policy.
"It's just another excuse for Pruitt to really abrogate EPA's responsibility to protect human health and the environment."
--Yogin Kothari, Union of Concerned ScientistsAs E&E News reported on Friday, Pruitt announced a push for "additional science reform" at the EPA during a closed-door meeting at the right-wing Heritage Foundation this week.
According to attendees and others who spoke to E&E News, this "reform" effort is expected to resemble Rep. Lamar Smith's (R-Texas) legislative attempt to prohibit the EPA from using scientific data that isn't fully available to the public and "reproducible" in developing policy.
"The proposal may sound reasonable enough at first," explained The Intercept's Sharon Lerner in a summary of Smith's bill. "But because health research often contains confidential personal information that is illegal to share, the bill would prevent the EPA from using many of the best scientific studies. It would also prohibit using studies of one-time events, such as the Gulf oil spill or the effect of a partial ban of chlorpyrifos on children...because these events--and thus the studies of them--can't be repeated."
And while Smith's bill would restrict the EPA's ability to use certain kinds of crucial scientific research, it would "allow industry to keep much of its own inner workings and skewed research secret from the public, while delegitimizing studies done by researchers with no vested interest in their outcome."
Pruitt's reported plan to enshrine Smith's proposals in official EPA policy was met with alarm by scientists, former government officials, and environmentalists, who argued that it is yet another "dangerous" attempt to curtail the agency's ability to combat environmental degradation.
Betsy Southerland, a former senior EPA official who resigned last year in protest against Pruitt's fervent deregulatory agenda, characterized Smith's bill and Pruitt's apparent support for it as part of a deceptive effort to "paralyze rulemaking."
"It's another obstacle that would make it so hard and so difficult to go forward with rulemaking that in the end, the only thing that would happen--in the best case you would greatly delay rulemaking; in the worst case you would just prevent it. It would be such an obstacle you couldn't overcome it."
Reacting to reports of Pruitt's plan on Friday, Yogin Kothari of the Union of Concerned Scientists called the expected move "alarming" and concluded: "It's just another excuse for Pruitt's EPA to really abrogate EPA's responsibility to protect human health and the environment."
A deeply unpopular plan by one of the Republican Party's most fervent climate deniers to restrict the use of scientific research in government rule-making isn't even advancing in the GOP-controlled Congress, but EPA chief Scott Pruitt appears to be moving to adopt it as official agency policy.
"It's just another excuse for Pruitt to really abrogate EPA's responsibility to protect human health and the environment."
--Yogin Kothari, Union of Concerned ScientistsAs E&E News reported on Friday, Pruitt announced a push for "additional science reform" at the EPA during a closed-door meeting at the right-wing Heritage Foundation this week.
According to attendees and others who spoke to E&E News, this "reform" effort is expected to resemble Rep. Lamar Smith's (R-Texas) legislative attempt to prohibit the EPA from using scientific data that isn't fully available to the public and "reproducible" in developing policy.
"The proposal may sound reasonable enough at first," explained The Intercept's Sharon Lerner in a summary of Smith's bill. "But because health research often contains confidential personal information that is illegal to share, the bill would prevent the EPA from using many of the best scientific studies. It would also prohibit using studies of one-time events, such as the Gulf oil spill or the effect of a partial ban of chlorpyrifos on children...because these events--and thus the studies of them--can't be repeated."
And while Smith's bill would restrict the EPA's ability to use certain kinds of crucial scientific research, it would "allow industry to keep much of its own inner workings and skewed research secret from the public, while delegitimizing studies done by researchers with no vested interest in their outcome."
Pruitt's reported plan to enshrine Smith's proposals in official EPA policy was met with alarm by scientists, former government officials, and environmentalists, who argued that it is yet another "dangerous" attempt to curtail the agency's ability to combat environmental degradation.
Betsy Southerland, a former senior EPA official who resigned last year in protest against Pruitt's fervent deregulatory agenda, characterized Smith's bill and Pruitt's apparent support for it as part of a deceptive effort to "paralyze rulemaking."
"It's another obstacle that would make it so hard and so difficult to go forward with rulemaking that in the end, the only thing that would happen--in the best case you would greatly delay rulemaking; in the worst case you would just prevent it. It would be such an obstacle you couldn't overcome it."
Reacting to reports of Pruitt's plan on Friday, Yogin Kothari of the Union of Concerned Scientists called the expected move "alarming" and concluded: "It's just another excuse for Pruitt's EPA to really abrogate EPA's responsibility to protect human health and the environment."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.