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 .

Re:Why is this even a debate?

[silentcoder]

>One of the effects of the bill will be to make it impossible to use data from large scale public health studie

That's not an effect, that's the GOAL. The Republicans have a problem preventing sensible regulations around things like air pollution and climate change backed up by solid scientific research - so they are trying to make the science that backs it up illegal.
Science that is not "secret" by any definition that applies to the scientific method at all - which is why scientists around the US has denounced the bill. There is no problem with reproducability at all.

What does put SOME access restriction on these large public health studies is that, because of when they were done, they were not anonymous. The only "secret" bit about them is confidential patient information. What the republicans want to do is exclude from scientific research all data that is covered by patient privilege.

Which is insane.

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.

For those wondering why this is a bad thing

[Overzeetop]

Every single study which involves health records would be forbidden to be used, because the RAW data is not available to the public. It's the perfect knot - previous law prevents the release of personally identifiable medical data, and this law makes it illegal to base any regulation on any study for which the raw data (in this case, personally identifiable - as it must be able to be 100% independently verified) is not released to the public.

This is about neutering the EPA's ability to "prove" that any particular pollutant causes harm to humans. If you can't provide the raw data that asbestos has led to lung cancer - patient records going back decades - you aren't allow to regulate it. Black lung? Chromium compounds in drinking water? Sorry, unless you publically release the medical records of every single person in every study you cite, it's "secret data" and junk science.

Re:The all-or-nothing fallacy

[ColdWetDog]

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.

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.