Slashdot Mirror
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.
If you're wondering why using "secret" science to regulate various environmental issues is a bad idea:
Researcher A: I've just discovered a substrate that makes solar cells 50% more efficient. This pushes their cost effectiveness to the point of making widespread adoption a no-brainer.
Researcher B, funded by the coal lobby: Hey EPA - this new solar substrate causes birth defects in robins! You can't show the proof to anyone though as it involves a secret process...
EPA: OK, effective immediately this substrate is banned.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
"...argue that the secret science legislation would force EPA to ignore numerous studies. They say that not only do many studies contain public health or industry-submitted data that are confidential, but the legislation provides too little funding for EPA to obtain all the necessary raw data. And many studies, such as longitudinal surveys, are not realistically “reproducible,” scientific organizations worry."
_
As far as republican backed industry is concerned, anything like health and environmental issues that prevent them from doing whatever the hell they want is bad. The EPA is a big supplier of those things they hate, so if they can cripple the EPA, they get to do more things to make them money, despite it being dangerous to the public health and safety.
So yes, they are trying to pull a fast one by attempting to eliminate as much as they can.
It's kind of like a mafia lawyer trying to get the judge to throw out all witness testimony that is not 1st hand police testimony, or all evidence that has been touched or operated by someone other than a cop. So Uncle Johns being in the room and seeing Vinnie the Slasher cut up the victim gets thrown out, along with the fingerprints from the door because Uncle John used it to run out screaming for the cops, of which he is not one of. And forget witness protection also, you can't hide the names and address of Uncle Johns family either, since that kind of confidential information isn't "transparent" enough...
Again, yes, it's a scam attempting to cloak itself in respectability. (Or more like trying to sneak sarin into the theater by hiding it in an empty first aid kit wrapped in bandages.)
Because this is a transparent attempt to rein in the EPA on the grounds of 'science'. Seems OK as a sound bite, doesn't quite work well in the ugly real world. As noted in TFA, there are two major, practical objections:
- The EPA doesn't get enough funding to do all of the studies by themselves. And there seems to be no mechanism in the proposed legislation to fix that little oversight. So it becomes an issue of perfect rather than practical. Sure, it would be best if everything were publicly funded and every bit of data published on the Internet, but it is arguably better if some 'imperfect' data is used rather than the very limited amount of data that is openly published.
- Longitudinal data, by definition, isn't 'repeatable'. You don't get to rewind the tape (if you are unfamiliar with this analogy, look up 'VCR' and similar ancient technology).
The way this bill is crafted makes it perfectly clear that good science is not the goal. Emasculating the EPA is.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
California, the land where silica(glass) causes cancer? The place which passed a physically impossible laws about electricity? That wretched hive of clueless nutballs? I'm all for cutting CO2, and fossil fuel usage, but basing anything legal off California is asking for trouble.(I am assuming everyone here knows how to google to find what I've referenced)