Slashdot Mirror
White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills
sciencehabit writes The U.S. House of Representatives could vote as early as this week to approve two controversial, Republican-backed bills that would change how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses science and scientific advice to inform its policies. Many Democrats, scientific organizations, and environmental groups are pushing back, calling the bills thinly veiled attempts to weaken future regulations and favor industry. White House advisers announced that they will recommend that President Barack Obama veto the bills if they reach his desk in their current form.
It makes me wonder if they're bringing out these stupid bills because they want to appease voters but know there's no chance of them actually passing because of white house veto.
Think about it; this is a wonderful time for the Republicans to create all kinds of crazy ridiculous stuff that appeases voters but that the politicians know is harmful, realizing that none of it will pass and that they'll get re-elected by their crazy base because "at least they tried."
Hmmmm!
What a genius political strategy when there's not a presidential election next year!
While they're busy sucking up to low-information voters who have a non-specific axe to grind, they're also alienating the support they'll need to not lose the White House for the third time in a row for the first time since the 1940's. I get the feeling they think that because it hasn't happened in so long, they're protected by some kind of voodoo fairy magic and pixie dust that will keep it from happening. But that would be par for the course for the party of "science am fake".
What's weird about making the data from scientific studies publically available? Frankly, I think the data from all government funded research should be public domain.
Yeah, you wouldn't want EPA regulations made from 'settled science' with full transparency. That wouldn't be in these activist's style. Obama went rogue long ago.
an ill wind that blows no good
Can't have the masses getting their info right from the source.
From the article:
"The bills, introduced by a mostly Republican cast of sponsors in both the House and the Senate, would require that EPA use only publicly available, reproducible data in writing regulations and seek to remake the membership and procedures of the agency’s science advisory panels."
The president plans to veto common sense.
"His name was James Damore."
I'm sorry, I still don't see how that's a bad thing. What's wrong with requiring some level of scientific rigor in something before making public policy on the results? Now, remaking the membership and procedures of the agency portion, that's rather vague and more info needed, too lazy to look it up.
The obvious target is to tie up all EPA regulations until courts have confirmed the reproducibility of the data used to base the decision on. It will fall to the EPA to prove their data is reproducible by someone who wishes to not reproduce it. Everything else would be illegal.
Learn to love Alaska
Public Domain's not the issue here, when the American Statistical Society opposes this bill, there must be some serious problem somewhere.
the devil is in the details:
The secret science bill, for example, would apparently bar EPA from using public health studies based on confidential patient information, wrote the American Statistical Association’s president, David Morganstein, in a 25 February letter to lawmakers. That would force the agency into “a choice between maintaining data confidentiality and issuing needed regulations,” he wrote. Also, efforts to deidentify sensitive data before release—by stripping names and other information—aren’t fail-safe, Morganstein wrote.
Democrats are further concerned about another provision, not included in earlier versions, that would give EPA only $1 million per year to implement the bill, which would entail, among other things, obtaining raw data from study authors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that the bill would cost $250 million annually to implement early on, and that’s only if EPA were to halve the number of studies it used to 25,000 annually, said Representative Donna Edwards (D–MD)
this bill is not even remotely about "transparency." it's about hamstringing the EPA.
If it ain't publicly known and reproducible then it ain't science. No public policy or regulation should be based in reasons that are not subject to examination and validation. This is pretty simple.
Its funny to see climate-change denying conservatives and anti-vaccine liberals make the same arguments to support their stance against overwhelming scientific evidence,
If the EPA is making decisions based on "overwhelming scientific evidence", what exactly is the problem with requiring that that evidence be available to the public, and that people who advise the EPA not base those decisions on unpublished personal research? That's what these bills require.
The only argument I can see that is valid deals with studies including personally identifiable medical information. Those kind of studies should already be required to remove PII prior to use by the government, and the limited number of such datasets shows that this is another case of the perfect being the enemy of the reasonable. Legislation that covers every possible eventuality is going to be overly complex and still have loopholes based on interpretations.
the devil is in the details:
Yes, such as the 50,000 studies they "use" annually. Thats 137 studies 'used" per day. I guess common sense doesnt figure into your view of things sine you quoted the part where this is detailed, but failed to notice how ridiculous this is.
The EPA employs 16,000 people full-time and contracts out work to many more, so that is 3 studies per employee per year. I fail to notice anything ridiculous about the number.
Do tell us, what is the "right" number of studies?
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
what exactly is the problem with requiring that that evidence be available to the public
Nothing's wrong with that.
That's what these bills require.
Nope. I've participated in medical studies (when I was in college, it was easy money). To meet the strict letter of the law, the EPA must publish my SSN, DOB, and medical history, or they can't use the study.
The bill doesn't require "the evidence" be available to the public (that'd be the completed study). The law requires the raw data be published by the EPA.
It also requires the data be "reproducible". All you have to do with a study with 95% confidence is to it 20 times, and then take the 1 failure to court and show the 1 success to be wrong and unreproducible. It may fail in court, but would cost the taxpayer millions, and delay the introduction of rules by years, or decades.
The obvious point of the law is to add hurdles, while claiming (non existent) benefits.
Learn to love Alaska
the devil is in the details:
Yes, such as the 50,000 studies they "use" annually. Thats 137 studies 'used" per day. I guess common sense doesnt figure into your view of things sine you quoted the part where this is detailed, but failed to notice how ridiculous this is.
you're not a scientist, or even science-adjacent, are you. research institutions, both public and private, review incredible amounts of scientific literature, research results, and related items on a daily basis. that's part of science.
what's not common sense is the belief that the EPA, or any other private or public agency doing science review and research, should stop reviewing data at an arbitrary limit of studies. that's not only the exact antithesis of good science, it's also an asinine claim.
The ASA makes most of its revenue by charging large amounts for access to closed academic journals. Of course they're opposed to open access laws.
It's a shame when the EPA's own strategy gets used against it.
???
From this you get the Republicans are the good guys? If this were my only measure I'd count the Dems as the good guys. This bill is a weird combination of stupid and evil.
There are other convincing reasons to *not* count the Dems as good guys, but this isn't one of them. This is just more evidence that we've got two sets of bad guys with slightly different goals. Generally I find the Dems a hair less evil, but I consider them sufficiently evil that I rarely vote for them. I vote for some third party or other. There's usually one that's less evil in it's promises than the Dems and Repubs are in their actions.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The only argument I can see that is valid deals with studies including personally identifiable medical information. Those kind of studies should already be required to remove PII prior to use by the government
TFA cites a letter sent to the Congressional committee by David Morganstein, president of the American Statistical Association. He writes:
[S]imple but necessary de-identification methods—like stripping names and other personally identifiable information (PII)—often do not suffice to protect confidentiality. Statisticians and computer scientists have repeatedly shown that it is possible to link individuals to publicly available sources, even with PII removed.
You can read Morganstein's full letter here. [PDF alert]
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
""would require that EPA use only publicly available, reproducible data in writing regulations and seek to remake the membership and procedures of the agencyâ(TM)s science advisory panels.""
Explain to me why that is bad? First, unreproducable science isn't science. So requiring that the science be reproducable is requiring that it actually be science. As to the information being publicly avalidable, it can't be peer reviewed unless it can be reviewed by peers.
Here someone will say "but we had some secret shadow council of scientists look it over and they said it was fine."... but since you're not disclosing it, then how can we know? What is more, your selection of scientists could be his buddies for all anyone knows.
I'm not talking about the science being behind a journal paywall. That's one thing. But if the science and data is straight up not disclosed then I'm not approving legislation based on it because I can't get it verified.
Look... republicans and democrats either need to kill each other or the two need to be able to work together reasonably. This is not an unreasonable requirement from what I can see. So... democrats... seriously... what the fuck? If the republicans are doing something stupid, then bitch about that and shut it down. But if they're not... then at least have a rational discussion about it. In fact, strike that... always have a rational discussion.
I know there is a lot of factionalism and tribalism in US politics. But we've come to the point where we need to get over that bullshit or throats need to get cut.
This shit is old.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I hope you aren't suggesting that Republicans do care about science - there seems to be ample evidence to the contrary.
And why would Democrats want to destroy capitalism? The stock market has done much better under the last two Democratic presidents than under the last two Republicans who held the office. Heck, when Clinton left office we had a net surplus and were actually reducing the national Debt.
To meet the strict letter of the law, the EPA must publish my SSN, DOB, and medical history, or they can't use the study.
First you claim that the EPA will have to reproduce the data or it will be illegal, and now this. No, the law doesn't say they have to publish your SSN, and at worst only those parts of your history that are relevant to the study might need to be online. If you think your SSN is somehow relevant to a medical study, you're wrong. And if you think your specific DOB is necessary and not just an approximate age, then you must believe in astrology. I know of no medical issues that depend on a specific age down to a specific day in history. (Were you a Hiroshima survivor?)
It also requires the data be "reproducible".
No, it does not. It says that the data used to make a decision (not all data ever provided to EPA) must be "publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results." All the EPA has to do is make sure the data is publicly available so that someone who DOES want to try reproducing it can. It doesn't even require the EPA to be the data warehouse.
All you have to do with a study with 95% confidence is to it 20 times, and then take the 1 failure to court and show the 1 success to be wrong and unreproducible.
And now you ignore the word "substantial". If the EPA is basing regulatory decisions on one study with one result and this law stops it, that's a good thing. One study does not science make, and one unpublished study with secret data makes for even less valid science.
The obvious point of the law is to add hurdles,
Yeah, an impossible hurdle of letting the public know the science that is being used to create regulations they have to obey or have the weight of the federal government crash down on them. If the science cannot survive the scrutiny, then it's isn't valid science and shouldn't be used to make regulations.
What's also not common sense is that this would keep EPA from using health studies from confidential sources. By their very nature, such studies are presumed to be repeatable; if not, then the researcher(s) are using questionable statistical methods at best. Like biased sampling methods, for example.
There is nothing in there that would preclude using decent studies which used non-controversial methodology. Whether the subjects of the studies remain confidential, or not.
In many fields, it is the case that data ultimately becomes available to the public. For example, in astronomy, the principle investigators are given a time frame for exclusive access to the data, but it ultimately is made available for download.
The issue here is that there are cases where you shouldn't make the data publicly available (public health studies, for example) because it isn't always possible to anonymize public health data (even when names, etc. are stripped). As a result, we need to limit access to those data sets. Researchers can still petition to get access if they can show they have a legitimate need to see the data, but that doesn't satisfy the requirements of the bill.
I hope you aren't suggesting that Republicans do care about science
Neil deGrasse Tyson certainly thinks they do.
"His name was James Damore."
Here is how that will work:
EPA: We have never seen the like of your flagrant disregard for all regulation, you are single handedly responsible for massive amounts of pollution. We have documentation of your polluting over the last 5 years.
Evil Corporation: Yes well now that we are done with our drilling projects could you reproduce those measurements just to be sure?
EPA: we had highly sensitive instruments, your pollution was beyond obvious - just look at the corpses!
Evil Corporation: So you can't reproduce the data?
EPA: how are we supposed to do that? Use a time machine?
Evil Corporation: well if that's all you got we are done here. Off to expand our corporate rights beyond mere citizenship.
If its a reaching non-issue Why would the backers of the bill suggest study participants can sign waivers or opt out? Why aren't they just fixing the bill to exclude that interpretation?
That isn't in the bill itself. That's what one person said in response to Morganstein's stated opinion about the bill.
The law is not subject either to Morganstein's interpretation, or what a single Representative said about it. That idea has been solidly settled by the Supreme Court.
400-year-old Common Law, still in effect in this country, says that the meaning of the law rests on one thing: what a reasonable person would conclude Congress intended when passing the law. That's why, for example, they have debates about bills in Congress.
I hardly think a reasonable person would conclude that study subjects could not be anonymous. That's an extreme interpretation, not a reasonable one.
And also as I stated up above: that's why the Court challenge to Obamacare is not about "4 words". It's about what Congress intended when passing the bill. There is A LOT more evidence of Congress' actual intent than just those 4 words.
EPA would pass a regulation, repubs would sue saying it's not reproducable and here is contracitory evidence, then there would be 8 years of sutis and appeals where EPA would have to show reporoducability at each step. repubs are just introducing a stall tactic they can use later.
believe it or not all those employees are already busy with stuff and don't have time to do what you want them to do.
No.. The EPA would propose a regulation and during the required comment period, people could examine the science and the data used and attempt to reproduce it. If they find fault during the regulation process (the EPA cannot just declare regulation, it has to propose it, wait for a comment period, address any concerns brought up, comment, then vote to pass it). But anyone can reproduce the science if it is sound. You will have people in favor of the regulation reproducing it, you will have universities doing the same. if someone cannot reproduce it and others can, you will only have people looking like dumbasses and nothing more.
All of these requirements add up effectively to denial of service attacks on regulation. They don't have to contest a proposed regulation on its own merits, they could just repeatedly contest the research backing it. Even if published research checks all the boxes they're demanding, they can grind it to a halt by forcing everyone involved to verify the case. And if something doesn't meet the requirements even if it doesn't substantially impact the validity of the research, that's a probably needed regulation that will take much longer to implement, even if it never gets past that stage. There will also likely be a metric ton of industry-generated "everything's fine, nothing to see here" "research" that does fit that opponents will demand to be considered.
So what you're saying is that "Due Process" is inconvenient?
The EPA should be subject to due process. If they're saying they're doing something because of a study... then that study itself should be subject to examination... that includes whether it is reprroducable and therefore science at all... and then you're going to want to know where the information came from so you can audit it.
You're holding the EPA to a lower standard then a corporation that files its yearly tax return.
You're being cousined. It is not unreasonable to ask that studies be reproducible before using them as justification for law and protocol. And it is not unreasonable for those same studies to have their data audited.
If you have such contempt for the political process then just come out and say it now... just say you hate democracy. Say you hate due process. Say you hate freedom of speech. Just admit it.
All these things make dictatorial rule difficult.
Due process forces those that wish to claim power to justify their actions and associate those actions with existing law. Democracy means you can't just take control unless you have a solid majority behind you. Some little cabal can't just do whatever they want. And of course, freedom of speech lets people tell you to your face... that you're a fascist fool. And that's not the image of yourself you want to project when you're pulling these hijinks.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
look at it this way... if the repubs are pushing a bill, then it must be for a nefarious purpose even if it seems logical on its face. once you realize this and start looking at people's motivations, you'll understand. follow the money!
Just how does one reproduce a temperature measurement from 150 years ago ? Aside from photocopying the handwritten record ?
Nullius in verba
Ah, so by the rules in this law, Global Warming can never be proven. Just like it's never been proven that smoking causes cancer. No study on that is "reproducable" because anything that would prove a link by exposing humans to smoke is unethical (thus illegal). It's illegal to prove smoking causes cancer, and thus illegal to repoduce any proof to that effect, so the EPA couldn't regulate smoke, because nobody can replicate a study proving smoke (or lead, or whatever) causes problems in humans.
So, is it malice or stupidity that gives us this catch 22 that makes all effective regulation illegal, and only ineffective regulation could be legal? I vote malice.
Learn to love Alaska
But anyone can reproduce the science if it is sound.
And what will be the benchmark for that? If the thing in question is the result of a ten-year study, will it include redoing ten years of measurements? Just because a result is reproducible in itself doesn't mean it will be reproduced quickly.
Ezekiel 23:20
Because it leaves all sorts of loopholes.
There is no scientific literature on how nasty fracking fluid is (blatantly not just inert chemicals) because the companies using it refuse to disclose what's in it.
With this bill, it would be impossible to regulate because there's no information about it. Depending on how the bill is written it would be impossible to even require information about it because that too would require "scientific studies" and I'll bet there's not a lot of papers out there with platitudes like "things we have no idea at all about may possibly not be good".
Make no mistake, this is not done with good intentions, it is a bill intended to neuter the EPA in order to benefit lage corporations. It's been given a sheen of science to make it seem reasonable, but it is almost certainly not designed for the purpose of making the government more scientific.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Every major science group in the country has opposed this bill, all the scientists oppose it.
Considering that they all love and live the scientific method, if this law was what it says it is, they would be supporting it.
You should reconsider judging a law by what republicans claim it does.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
What's wrong with requiring some level of scientific rigor in something before making public policy on the results?
That would impede the politically driven agenda, so it obviously can't be good.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
"all the scientists oppose it." Right. And 97% believe in AGW.
The proverbial Devil is in the Details. While the main public "idea" behind the bills makes sense, the bills contain provisions that make them, in effect, EPA-killers.
The "Public Data" bill contains a provision only giving the EPA $1M per year to make the data public, which is not nearly enough money to do the job. It would essentially stop the EPA in it's tracks, unable to make policy. (Which is likely the true intent of the bill.)
The other bill bars academics from even discussing research they are performing if it hasn't yet been published. (But I'll bet that provision doesn't apply to industry members.) It also requires panels to respond to ALL public comments on their work. In practice, this means their work would never complete. No other regulatory agency has such a restriction.
Lets not be silly just to push a narritive. You will come up with a completely different data set if you spend ten years recollecting data.
What I had in mind is what silly conditions will be pushed by people in power who don't like the conclusions of some studies.
How much of the global warming debate would exist today if everything was open at the time instead of refusals to disclose data and so on
At what time? What refusals? What are you talking about? Arrhenius predicted global warming in 1896! Publically, of course. You're saying that somebody has been hiding some data for a century?
Ezekiel 23:20