Senate Advances "Secret Science" Bill, Sets Up Possible Showdown With President

sciencehabit writes: Republicans in Congress appear to be headed for a showdown with the White House over controversial "secret science" legislation aimed at changing how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses scientific studies. A deeply divided Senate panel yesterday advanced a bill that would require EPA to craft its policies based only on public data available to outside experts. The House of Representatives has already passed a similar measure. But Democrats and science groups have harshly criticized the approach, and the White House has threatened a veto.

Comments

Why is this even a debate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Making decisions based on research that can't be independently validated or audited is the very definition of junk science. I mean, I know that the pay journals would love to see open access go away, but that's just their flawed business model talking.

Re:Why is this even a debate?

[mi]

I've read it.

So cite the parts you find offensive...

The Conservatives are happy to kill innocents

Bravo! This sentence alone explains everything about you. Very well put, except for one minor nit: In such context, the word is spelled KKKonservatives. Otherwise perfect.

Or you don't know how studies are done.

I do. And one of the requirements for a scientific finding, is that it be reproducible .

Don't single out EPA

[confused one]

If they're going to create such a rule for EPA, then it should also apply to NIH, FDA, DOE, and so on. If they don't make it universal, then they're showing an obvious bias and clearly pushing an agenda which is attempting to influence specific science.

PS

[TapeCutter]

Shouldn't we want them to be basing policy on publicly available data?

This is an excellent example of how well-crafted political propaganda works. The act of introducing the bill implies the EPA are not already basing policy on publicly available data, opposing the bill implies you want to hide something from the public. Even if the bill fails to pass, it has already succeeded as a propaganda piece.

Make no mistake, this is a far-right attempt to put Science on a short leash.

Re:The all-or-nothing fallacy

[PopeRatzo]

I'm in favor of having information publicly available (for all departments, not just the EPA) and the argument about policy being made on secret information is compelling.

The composition of the toxic cocktail that's used in horizontal fracturing is kept away from the public because it's a "trade secret". Do you believe the EPA should not be able to restrict the high-pressure injection of toxic chemicals into the aquifer because the information isn't "public"?

Or are people going to have to be able to strip paint with their drinking water before they'll be able to find out what's in it? Because freedom?

I'm in favor of having information publicly available (for all departments, not just the EPA)

Look, I'm a big fan of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning too, but when you have corporations with vested interests in keeping information away from the public, forcing the government to only be able to act on information that's public will only let them run further amok.

Maybe it's because I'm old enough to remember what the Great Lakes were like before the EPA. Gigantic bodies of "fresh" water that are too toxic to support life can really start to sour your opinion on the whole "get the government off corporations' backs" idea.