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
A sign held at the March for Science in San Francisco, California, on April 22, 2017. (Photo: Matthew Roth/flickr/cc)
In Super Tuesday 'News Dump,' EPA Expands Rule Limiting Science the Agency Can Use to Make Public Health Policy Decisions
"Now is not the time to play games with critical medical research that underpins every rule designed to protect us from harmful pollution in our air and in our water."
Mar 03, 2020
As most political observers were watching the election results in the Democratic primary from 14 states come in Tuesday evening, the EPA quietly published a proposed change to a rule the Union of Concerned Scientists has called "nonsensical and dangerous"--expanding the agency's so-called "secret science" rule to further limit the scientific evidence the EPA will consider in its work.
In what Mother Jones environmental reporter Rebecca Leber called "an incredible news dump" in the midst of a contentious election, the EPA "moved forward its most controversial proposal of the Trump administration."
Under the rule, which was first proposed by former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt in 2018 and is officially called "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science," the EPA cannot use scientific studies to guide its regulatory work unless the underlying data used by the studies is available to the public.
The "supplemental notice" published Tuesday night would expand the rule to apply not only when the agency is considering a new rule or regulation, but to all EPA activities, including when the EPA is sharing "influential scientific information."
As Betsy Southerland, a former official in the EPA's Office of Water, told Bloomberg News, "The EPA couldn't cite a study about sea level rise in coastal communities if the study relies on a proprietary model that's not available for free--'even if it's not used to regulate anything.'"
"This supplemental notice compounds the damage done," Southerland told Bloomberg.
Critics say the expansion of the proposed rule, which the EPA expects to go into effect later this year, will ultimately downplay the effects of pollutants, chemicals, and other public health threats on communities. Scientists frequently use epidemiological studies to determine how the EPA should regulate such substances, but such research often includes private medical data--which would make the studies off-limits to the EPA under the "secret science" rule.
"They are basically going to say the studies where the data is publicly available are better than studies where the data isn't publicly available, irrespective of how good and important the science and the evidence is," Andrew Rosenberg of the Union of Concerned Scientists told The Hill. "It's totally not scientific."
The rule could have dire implications in the face of a public health crisis like the one currently facing the U.S. and other countries around the world.
"Think of this in the context of coronavirus," Rosenberg told The Hill. "Can you imagine data being the most important thing or do you want scientific research that is robust?"
With many communities across the country facing the effects of pollution from the fossil fuel industry, "Now is not the time to play games with critical medical research," wrote Gina McCarthy, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and former EPA administrator under the Obama administration.
The rule could open the door for industry-funded studies to make their way to the EPA for consideration as the agency makes regulatory decisions. Industry scientists could make their underlying data public in the interest of gaining the EPA's favor.
"The 'censored science rule' inherently gives industry an unethical advantage that will contribute to environmental injustice," said Dr. Bernie Goldstein, former chair of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, in a statement. "For example, consider an impending EPA science based regulation that will affect the extent of emissions to a disadvantaged community from a major industrial source."
"Under this rule," he said, "only one side, industry, can afford to hire consultants whose success is dependent on slicing and dicing the raw data to find trivial issues that can be artfully distorted and magnified."
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.
corporate powercovid-19environmentepapandemicpollutionpublic healthtrumpismunion of concerned scientistswar on science
As most political observers were watching the election results in the Democratic primary from 14 states come in Tuesday evening, the EPA quietly published a proposed change to a rule the Union of Concerned Scientists has called "nonsensical and dangerous"--expanding the agency's so-called "secret science" rule to further limit the scientific evidence the EPA will consider in its work.
In what Mother Jones environmental reporter Rebecca Leber called "an incredible news dump" in the midst of a contentious election, the EPA "moved forward its most controversial proposal of the Trump administration."
Under the rule, which was first proposed by former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt in 2018 and is officially called "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science," the EPA cannot use scientific studies to guide its regulatory work unless the underlying data used by the studies is available to the public.
The "supplemental notice" published Tuesday night would expand the rule to apply not only when the agency is considering a new rule or regulation, but to all EPA activities, including when the EPA is sharing "influential scientific information."
As Betsy Southerland, a former official in the EPA's Office of Water, told Bloomberg News, "The EPA couldn't cite a study about sea level rise in coastal communities if the study relies on a proprietary model that's not available for free--'even if it's not used to regulate anything.'"
"This supplemental notice compounds the damage done," Southerland told Bloomberg.
Critics say the expansion of the proposed rule, which the EPA expects to go into effect later this year, will ultimately downplay the effects of pollutants, chemicals, and other public health threats on communities. Scientists frequently use epidemiological studies to determine how the EPA should regulate such substances, but such research often includes private medical data--which would make the studies off-limits to the EPA under the "secret science" rule.
"They are basically going to say the studies where the data is publicly available are better than studies where the data isn't publicly available, irrespective of how good and important the science and the evidence is," Andrew Rosenberg of the Union of Concerned Scientists told The Hill. "It's totally not scientific."
The rule could have dire implications in the face of a public health crisis like the one currently facing the U.S. and other countries around the world.
"Think of this in the context of coronavirus," Rosenberg told The Hill. "Can you imagine data being the most important thing or do you want scientific research that is robust?"
With many communities across the country facing the effects of pollution from the fossil fuel industry, "Now is not the time to play games with critical medical research," wrote Gina McCarthy, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and former EPA administrator under the Obama administration.
The rule could open the door for industry-funded studies to make their way to the EPA for consideration as the agency makes regulatory decisions. Industry scientists could make their underlying data public in the interest of gaining the EPA's favor.
"The 'censored science rule' inherently gives industry an unethical advantage that will contribute to environmental injustice," said Dr. Bernie Goldstein, former chair of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, in a statement. "For example, consider an impending EPA science based regulation that will affect the extent of emissions to a disadvantaged community from a major industrial source."
"Under this rule," he said, "only one side, industry, can afford to hire consultants whose success is dependent on slicing and dicing the raw data to find trivial issues that can be artfully distorted and magnified."
As most political observers were watching the election results in the Democratic primary from 14 states come in Tuesday evening, the EPA quietly published a proposed change to a rule the Union of Concerned Scientists has called "nonsensical and dangerous"--expanding the agency's so-called "secret science" rule to further limit the scientific evidence the EPA will consider in its work.
In what Mother Jones environmental reporter Rebecca Leber called "an incredible news dump" in the midst of a contentious election, the EPA "moved forward its most controversial proposal of the Trump administration."
Under the rule, which was first proposed by former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt in 2018 and is officially called "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science," the EPA cannot use scientific studies to guide its regulatory work unless the underlying data used by the studies is available to the public.
The "supplemental notice" published Tuesday night would expand the rule to apply not only when the agency is considering a new rule or regulation, but to all EPA activities, including when the EPA is sharing "influential scientific information."
As Betsy Southerland, a former official in the EPA's Office of Water, told Bloomberg News, "The EPA couldn't cite a study about sea level rise in coastal communities if the study relies on a proprietary model that's not available for free--'even if it's not used to regulate anything.'"
"This supplemental notice compounds the damage done," Southerland told Bloomberg.
Critics say the expansion of the proposed rule, which the EPA expects to go into effect later this year, will ultimately downplay the effects of pollutants, chemicals, and other public health threats on communities. Scientists frequently use epidemiological studies to determine how the EPA should regulate such substances, but such research often includes private medical data--which would make the studies off-limits to the EPA under the "secret science" rule.
"They are basically going to say the studies where the data is publicly available are better than studies where the data isn't publicly available, irrespective of how good and important the science and the evidence is," Andrew Rosenberg of the Union of Concerned Scientists told The Hill. "It's totally not scientific."
The rule could have dire implications in the face of a public health crisis like the one currently facing the U.S. and other countries around the world.
"Think of this in the context of coronavirus," Rosenberg told The Hill. "Can you imagine data being the most important thing or do you want scientific research that is robust?"
With many communities across the country facing the effects of pollution from the fossil fuel industry, "Now is not the time to play games with critical medical research," wrote Gina McCarthy, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and former EPA administrator under the Obama administration.
The rule could open the door for industry-funded studies to make their way to the EPA for consideration as the agency makes regulatory decisions. Industry scientists could make their underlying data public in the interest of gaining the EPA's favor.
"The 'censored science rule' inherently gives industry an unethical advantage that will contribute to environmental injustice," said Dr. Bernie Goldstein, former chair of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, in a statement. "For example, consider an impending EPA science based regulation that will affect the extent of emissions to a disadvantaged community from a major industrial source."
"Under this rule," he said, "only one side, industry, can afford to hire consultants whose success is dependent on slicing and dicing the raw data to find trivial issues that can be artfully distorted and magnified."
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.