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
Then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt enters the hearing room prior to his testimony before the House Appropriations Committee during a hearing on the 2019 Fiscal Year EPA budget at the Capitol on April 26, 2018 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Alex Edelman/Getty Images)
'Astounding': Email Shows Ex-EPA Chief Pruitt Locked Out His Own Agency's Top Experts While Hatching War on Science
"Crafting any significant proposal behind closed doors without even bothering to notify career scientific staff suggests that it's much more about politics than it is about science."
Oct 04, 2018
Before scandal-ridden Scott Pruitt resigned as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and passed the reins to an ex-coal lobbyist, the Trump appointee launched an "alarming" effort to significantly limit what scientific studies the agency can use when crafting public health regulations--and according to new reporting, he excluded some the agency's own experts from process.
"It's astounding that the EPA science adviser's office was left completely out of the loop during the development of a major science policy proposal."
--Michael Halpern, UCS
On April 24--the same day that Pruitt publicly unveiled a rule that experts warned "serves no purpose other than to prevent the EPA from carrying out its mission"--Tom Sinks, head of the EPA's Office of the Science Advisor, wrote in an email that although he was listed as a point of contact and "the proposal likely touches upon three aspects of OSA work--public access to EPA funded research, human subjects research protection, and scientific integrity," he had not even seen it until that day.
Sinks' email was released in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and obtained by the Washington Post. While the agency claimed in a statement that "EPA received input from a number of stakeholders and utilized the intra and interagency process to ensure a robust proposal was put forward," critics say the revelation suggests the exclusion of OSA was politically motivated.
"It's astounding that the EPA science adviser's office was left completely out of the loop during the development of a major science policy proposal," Michael Halpern, deputy director of UCS's center for science and democracy, told the Post. "Crafting any significant proposal behind closed doors without even bothering to notify career scientific staff suggests that it's much more about politics than it is about science."
The proposed rule is similar to a measure before Congress called the HONEST Act, which UCS's Andrew Rosenberg warned in March "is a Trojan-horse transparency bill that, among other things, would make it harder for the EPA to use public health studies to finalize science-based public health protections." The measures aim to block the agency from relying on private-sector studies that are based on epidemiological data which, due to patient or proprietary information, must remain confidential.
Published in the Federal Register on April 30, the comment period for Pruitt's so-called Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule was extended through mid-August. An agency spokesperson told the Post it has garnered more than 590,000 comments. The newspaper noted that at least 69 prominent scientific, medical, and academic groups have come out against it.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
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 |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Before scandal-ridden Scott Pruitt resigned as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and passed the reins to an ex-coal lobbyist, the Trump appointee launched an "alarming" effort to significantly limit what scientific studies the agency can use when crafting public health regulations--and according to new reporting, he excluded some the agency's own experts from process.
"It's astounding that the EPA science adviser's office was left completely out of the loop during the development of a major science policy proposal."
--Michael Halpern, UCS
On April 24--the same day that Pruitt publicly unveiled a rule that experts warned "serves no purpose other than to prevent the EPA from carrying out its mission"--Tom Sinks, head of the EPA's Office of the Science Advisor, wrote in an email that although he was listed as a point of contact and "the proposal likely touches upon three aspects of OSA work--public access to EPA funded research, human subjects research protection, and scientific integrity," he had not even seen it until that day.
Sinks' email was released in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and obtained by the Washington Post. While the agency claimed in a statement that "EPA received input from a number of stakeholders and utilized the intra and interagency process to ensure a robust proposal was put forward," critics say the revelation suggests the exclusion of OSA was politically motivated.
"It's astounding that the EPA science adviser's office was left completely out of the loop during the development of a major science policy proposal," Michael Halpern, deputy director of UCS's center for science and democracy, told the Post. "Crafting any significant proposal behind closed doors without even bothering to notify career scientific staff suggests that it's much more about politics than it is about science."
The proposed rule is similar to a measure before Congress called the HONEST Act, which UCS's Andrew Rosenberg warned in March "is a Trojan-horse transparency bill that, among other things, would make it harder for the EPA to use public health studies to finalize science-based public health protections." The measures aim to block the agency from relying on private-sector studies that are based on epidemiological data which, due to patient or proprietary information, must remain confidential.
Published in the Federal Register on April 30, the comment period for Pruitt's so-called Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule was extended through mid-August. An agency spokesperson told the Post it has garnered more than 590,000 comments. The newspaper noted that at least 69 prominent scientific, medical, and academic groups have come out against it.
Before scandal-ridden Scott Pruitt resigned as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and passed the reins to an ex-coal lobbyist, the Trump appointee launched an "alarming" effort to significantly limit what scientific studies the agency can use when crafting public health regulations--and according to new reporting, he excluded some the agency's own experts from process.
"It's astounding that the EPA science adviser's office was left completely out of the loop during the development of a major science policy proposal."
--Michael Halpern, UCS
On April 24--the same day that Pruitt publicly unveiled a rule that experts warned "serves no purpose other than to prevent the EPA from carrying out its mission"--Tom Sinks, head of the EPA's Office of the Science Advisor, wrote in an email that although he was listed as a point of contact and "the proposal likely touches upon three aspects of OSA work--public access to EPA funded research, human subjects research protection, and scientific integrity," he had not even seen it until that day.
Sinks' email was released in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and obtained by the Washington Post. While the agency claimed in a statement that "EPA received input from a number of stakeholders and utilized the intra and interagency process to ensure a robust proposal was put forward," critics say the revelation suggests the exclusion of OSA was politically motivated.
"It's astounding that the EPA science adviser's office was left completely out of the loop during the development of a major science policy proposal," Michael Halpern, deputy director of UCS's center for science and democracy, told the Post. "Crafting any significant proposal behind closed doors without even bothering to notify career scientific staff suggests that it's much more about politics than it is about science."
The proposed rule is similar to a measure before Congress called the HONEST Act, which UCS's Andrew Rosenberg warned in March "is a Trojan-horse transparency bill that, among other things, would make it harder for the EPA to use public health studies to finalize science-based public health protections." The measures aim to block the agency from relying on private-sector studies that are based on epidemiological data which, due to patient or proprietary information, must remain confidential.
Published in the Federal Register on April 30, the comment period for Pruitt's so-called Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule was extended through mid-August. An agency spokesperson told the Post it has garnered more than 590,000 comments. The newspaper noted that at least 69 prominent scientific, medical, and academic groups have come out against it.
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.