EPA Proposes Limits To Science Used In Rulemaking (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule on Tuesday that would limit the kinds of scientific research it can use in crafting regulations, an apparent concession to big business that has long requested such restrictions. Under the new proposals, the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data. The measure was billed by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt as a way to boost transparency for the benefit of the industries his agency regulates. But scientists and former EPA officials worry it will hamstring the agency's ability to protect public health by putting key data off limits.

The EPA has for decades relied on scientific research that is rooted in confidential medical and industry data as a basis for its air, water and chemicals rules. While it publishes enormous amounts of research and data to the public, the confidential material is held back. Business interests have argued the practice is tantamount to writing laws behind closed doors and unfairly prevents them from vetting the research underpinning the EPA's often costly regulatory requirements. They argue that if the data cannot be published, the rules should not be adopted. But ex-EPA officials say the practice is vital.

Comments

Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[aepervius]

I mean I usually suspect the industry to want to hamstring the EPA, after all it forces them to take into account externalities, which they could otherwise ignore and cut corner. But what sort of research would be private and have an impact ? Before deciding either way I would need example. I am no friend of "trust us we were told that XYZ is bad for you" (The only counter example I can think of is military research, but I guess that would be exempt).

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Medical research.

The participants in a medical study generally are protected from having their medical histories exposed to the world.

I suppose one could argue that knowing someone is 37, a non-smoker, takes over-the-counter asprin, and has high-blood pressure might not be enough to expose who they are. But in more detailed tests knowing someone had cancer in a timeframe or making their DNA public definitely could be invasive.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who also gets to decide what is confidential and why?

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

But what sort of research would be private and have an impact ?

Here's some of what the Union for Concerned Scientists had to say about attempted GOP legislation that tried to do the same thing:

Agencies such as the EPA don’t make all this information publicly available for a number of very good reasons. Protecting individuals’ privacy is prime among them. For example, we’re all aware of the laws that protect the privacy of our medical records. The Secret Science bill appears to require the EPA to release such confidential personal health information about the participants in scientific studies if it wants to use health studies to make regulatory decisions—a direct violation of health privacy law. The bill also fails to protect intellectual property rights, another reason data often cannot be publicly released.

Further, the bill would not compel companies and others to make their relevant data publicly available to the agency.

The upshot is, if this bill became law, the EPA would not be able to use public health data protected by confidentiality agreements to enact science-based regulations. The result? The EPA would not be able to carry out its mission of protecting public health and the environment.

What’s Wrong with Expecting the EPA to Make All of Its Data Available—Isn’t Complete Transparency a Good Thing?

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're compensated. Facebook sells your data for basically giving you a free blog.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Excerpt from a letter signed by 1000 scientists urging Pruitt not to do this:

Proponents for these radical restrictions purport to raise two sets of concerns: reproducibility and
transparency. In reality, these are phony issues that weaponize ‘transparency’ to facilitate political
interference in science-based decisionmaking, rather than genuinely address either. The result will be
policies and practices that will ignore significant risks to the health of every American.

First, many public health studies cannot be replicated, as doing so would require intentionally and
unethically exposing people and the environment to harmful contaminants or recreating one-time events
(such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill).

Second, there are multiple valid reasons why requiring the release of all data does not improve scientific
integrity and could actually compromise research, including intellectual property, proprietary, and
privacy concerns. Further, EPA has historically been transparent in demonstrating the scientific basis of
its decisions, so the public can hold the agency accountable to establish evidence-based safeguards; any
changes should be made with the full consultation with and support of the scientific community.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[omnichad]

But what sort of research would be private and have an impact ?

Cancer clusters vs. HIPAA.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Not everything is about your politics.

If a construction crew drops a girder, what happens if it hits a Trump voter? Is this any different from what happens if it hits a Clinton voter instead?

I expect snark in response, of course, since you're more interested in looking clever than you are in finding truth.

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Zontar The Mindless]

They're compensated.

Bull-hockey. Having one's entire life laid bare is hardly compensation for a free home page.

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Calydor]

The general population disagrees or Facebook wouldn't be as successful as they are.

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

#creimertard

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The general population have no clue how data can be used.

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is "B" Clinton? Any relation to William?

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Humbubba]

A statement is not scientific if it can't conceivably be proven wrong empirically. Testability is why I trust science to be the basis for EPA regulations and environmental laws.

But instead of relying on science, our political system lets companies write the laws and regulations that govern them. As a result, we get abominations like polluted water in Flint MI, West Virginia, and North Carolina.

Before releasing something into the water supply, samples should be tested for contaminants. And if those samples don't make the grade, those responsible need to be held accountable. Making discharge safe typically involves diluting it to approved contaminant levels before releasing it into the water supply. Simple, really. There are labs that can and do test discharge samples for a plethora of contaminants, acidity, color, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, etc. But they don't test for everything that might be dangerous - prescription drugs for example. These sort of things need to be put right before they are put in our water. But it won't happen if science doesn't make the rules and regulators don't enforce those rules.

Because science and technology can verifiably be used to clean up the environment, whereas politics demonstratively won't, I propose replacing Scott Pruitt with AI. If AI is good enough for the CIA, it's gotta be better for the environment than a corrupt political lackey.

--

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/videos/what-lies-upstream/

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance is not an excuse.

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry Ivan, you fail at trolling. Please try to study harder in your ESL classes!

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

B. Clinton, middle initial J.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Science is only science if it's public. otherwise it's propaganda.

As seen by the ability of those who comment on Slashdot to understand such data?

Are you kidding me? That's the biggest pile of bullshit to hit the internet today - but it's still early.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[tomhath]

if this bill became law, the EPA would not be able to use public health data protected by confidentiality agreements

Almost all public health data can be used once it's de-identified. There will be some examples where an unusual combination of timing and medical conditions would mean it has to be kept confidential, but that's the exception and the number of cases will be small.

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder who bribed B. Clinton, and how much, to get HIPAA made law.

Right, because "B. Clinton" authored the bill, amended the bill, argued for and against the bill, passed the bill and then signed it into law, right?

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance is not an excuse.

Funny how that only seem to apply to the proles, not the polluters.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Proponents for these radical restrictions purport to raise two sets of concerns: reproducibility and
transparency. In reality, these are phony issues that weaponize ‘transparency’ to facilitate political
interference in science-based decisionmaking, rather than genuinely address either.

It is the same as pretty much everything else with them.

1. Establish the desired outcome. Eliminate abortions, get more republicans elected, more tax cuts for high earners, etc.
2. Determine what paths get that outcome ignoring ethics entirely or to a great degree.
3. If necessary come up with "reasons" why you had to take those actions.
4. Take those actions.

With abortions, you have such things as requiring a 6 foot wide hallway. There have been no rational basis for why that is required beyond they wanted to shutdown more abortion clinics, but the stated reason was for the health of the people involved. In other words, they lied.

In voting, you have protecting against fake voting as the stated reason. In practice their voting role purges, voter id requirements, etc, etc raise barriers to voting that tend to favour their side. In short, they lied again.

With this you have the stated reason of protecting us from non verified info and such, but the outcome of gutting more of the EPA and making the planet dirtier. In short, they lied again.

They elected someone known for lying and have established a pattern of lying continuously to get their way. None of this is new..

Hell Trump just called the leader of North Korea "Very Honourable."

Truth means nothing to these people. Only outcomes matter. It is all a means to the end.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

no. because when a study is released, personal data can easily be made anonymous

Hello, mcdumbass! That's the point, the rule change forbids that anonymization.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Talderas]

Potentially, there's very little that is impacted when it comes to the ability of the EPA to make sound and rational regulation decisions. The main reason that scientists and researchers are complaining about the rule change is because it shoulders them with the cost of first deanonymizing medical data in order to be able to present it for consideration in EPA rulemaking. They were not previously required to do this in which case they present research which the government in turn kept secret and consequently that research is unable to be vetted or checked by the public or direct subjects of EPA rulemaking.

If this were the only class of data that was being kept secret then it's fairly obvious that this is an issue with HIPAA laws and the law should be amended so that researchers and scientists do not count as covered entities. Much like how medical malpractice lawyers are not covered entities and can distribute your personal medical information as scrap paper to elementary schools without violating HIPAA. That would solve the problem and eliminate any need for the EPA keeping research used in rulemaking secret. Unfortunately, there are other classes of data which are likely used and have to be kept secret for other reasons.

If the goes is to have transparent discourse in rulemaking then the data used to make rulemaking needs to be available for parties in favor of and opposed to proposed rules. You can go about that via two approaches.

1. Prevent considering of data which cannot be made public.
2. Amend laws which require data considered to be kept secret rather than public.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[kenh]

You're talking about HIPPA regulations - have you ever read the HIPPA regulations? Ever worked in a HIPPA regulated field?

HIPPA regulations require that patient identity be protected - I used to work in the clinical drug trial industry and we used six-digit patient numbers and three letter initials to identify patients in our studies, and the client research companies protected the key that mapped the six-digit IDs and initials to the actual consent forms and other personally-identifiable documents.

Take your example:

someone is 37, a non-smoker, takes over-the-counter asprin, and has high-blood pressure

None of that information tells you who the patient is, it does not reveal their identity... Adding that the same person "had cancer in a time frame" does not revel their identity - to use that information to arrive at an identity would require you to already know the person and know they had cancer "in a certain time period" before you could identify who the patient is - the only problem is you haven't revealed anything, you already knew the identity of the patient that had cancer.
 

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[aquacrayfish]

If the goal was to look clever then I'm a bit disturbed by the resulting sentence.

(Excellent post, btw).

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[oh_my_080980980]

LMOL the general population was never asked if they would like their private property sold for billions of dollars with no compensation other than using Facebook. Try again Potsy...

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

But what sort of research would be private and have an impact ? Before deciding either way I would need example.

Jesus man, it's a two paragraph summary ....

The EPA has for decades relied on scientific research that is rooted in confidential medical and industry data as a basis for its air, water and chemicals rules. While it publishes enormous amounts of research and data to the public, the confidential material is held back.

You know, it says right there, medical studies need to remain private. Giving over medical data to private companies so they can claim refute it is a terrible idea.

They measure the effects that happen to humans, that information is private, and now the EPA has decided that you can't do science if you need to keep the data from medical studies you used to make your conclusion private.

This is just another bullshit means of trying to remove credible science so that they can claim the science is dubious. The science isn't dubious, the reasons for excluding this kind of information is, because like every other agency under Trump, the people running it are opposed to the core mission and trying to undermine it.

Opening up private medical information to corporations to scrutinise is a dumb idea. And the idiots in charge of the EPA seem to be hell bent on stacking the deck against good policy, and giving corporations a means of saying "la la la, we don't believe your science because you won't give us access to private medical data".

Nobody is going to agree to be part of medical research is asshole corporations are going to be given their private data.

If you'd the second fucking paragraph of the summary, you could have spared us your stupid question.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to understand the Slashthink.

FISA warrants are bad because the evidence is secret.
EPA transparency is bad because the evidence is public.

The root of it really is not the action or the evidence, it's all politics on this site. Who does something is more important that what is done. Just look at the number of posts that say some variant of "it doesn't matter if it's a good idea, Trump did it so that must mean there's some evil aspect of it."

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Twice you've tried to paint someone as a shareblue troll within the first couple of posts. Sounds like you paid attention to today's talking points.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, politicians chose to provide poisonous dirty Flint Mi. water, because the nibberized neighborhoods they served could not afford to pay for clean water. Most industry had moved to Mexico or China; nobody produced a thing of value to exchange for clean water. What is your issue? Nothing is free ... nobody has a right to anything they cannot buy at market price. Poor people = poor water; productive people = yummy clean water. Any question SJW circle-jerk ?

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The explanation by the scientists is clear enough to answer this troll's question, but that "full disclosure" is not the troll's purpose.

Remember how some trollers are actually dishonest disruptors of useful, open discourse - perhaps paid by those who want to stop open discussion? They use various trolling techniques, like this one. I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of those disrupters.

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correcting the Record!

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Re: "Proponents for these radical restrictions purport to raise two sets of concerns: reproducibility and transparency. In reality, these are phony issues that weaponize ‘transparency’ to facilitate political interference in science-based decisionmaking, rather than genuinely address either."

Centralized "big science" communities more likely generate non-replicable results

"Abstract: Growing concern that most published results, including those widely agreed upon, may be false are rarely examined against rapidly expanding research production. Replications have only occurred on small scales due to prohibitive expense and limited professional incentive. We introduce a novel, high-throughput replication strategy aligning 51,292 published claims about drug-gene interactions with high-throughput experiments performed through the NIH LINCS L1000 program. We show (1) that unique claims replicate 19% more frequently than at random, while those widely agreed upon replicate 45% more frequently, manifesting collective correction mechanisms in science; but (2) centralized scientific communities perpetuate claims that are less likely to replicate even if widely agreed upon, demonstrating how centralized, overlapping collaborations weaken collective understanding. Decentralized research communities involve more independent teams and use more diverse methodologies, generating the most robust, replicable results. Our findings highlight the importance of science policies that foster decentralized collaboration to promote robust scientific advance."

Introduction:

Concern over reliability (1) and reproducibility (2, 3) in science calls into question the cumulative process of building on prior results published by others. In a publication environment that rewards novel findings over verifications (4, 5), scientists remain uncertain about the published claims they assemble into new research designs and discoveries. In this paper, we demonstrate a claim replication strategy that repurposes high-throughput experiments to evaluate the replication likelihood for tens of thousands of scientific claims curated from a wide range of research articles.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[DCFusor]

Wrong agency. FDA does medical, not EPA. Way to toss in a specious bunch of crap.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing in that paper is applicable here. "Big science" does not mean secret data. The very fact that that the paper's authors could measure replicability shows that the data necessary to reproduce was available. That paper is about centralized versus de-centralized organization of scientific research.

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they were asked, and agreed.

The strongest argument could be that agreements isn't valid because they didn't understand it. However if contracts can be thrown out because one party didn't understand, we have trouble.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[RogueWarrior65]

The infamous hockey-stick graph researcher. The asshat won't release his research on the grounds that it belongs to him. Yeah, ok, so we're just supposed to trust that you didn't fabricate your data, didn't exclude data that refutes your claims, and that your methods are sound all while making public policy that could cost everyone a crapton of money. I've got a great insurance policy to sell you for that bridge you just bought.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Rhipf]

But it that identity is kept confidential at all the study couldn't be used by the EPA if this proposed rule is passed.

the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, when you say the risks of people living near this factory having cancer are 20% higher, so that plant must be closed, is it fair to see the research that demonstrates it? Could be that only chain-smokers live by the factory, and it's chain smoking, not the factory that's the problem. That's the point of requiring some level of transparency. Hell, there's plenty of "manipulated" research being published in refereed journals, and that's smaller than the p-value hunting that's endemic. The research needs transparency too.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Straif]

No it does not. Studies must still follow HIPPA regulations and mask identifying data. Anonymized data doesn't prevent a study from being public.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[kelemvor4]

But it that identity is kept confidential at all the study couldn't be used by the EPA if this proposed rule is passed.

the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data

I've never seen a medical study based on a person's name or social security number.

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they weren't asked. Only Facebook users were asked. People that are actually friends with Facebook users also had all kinds of information collected about them. They merely agreed to have their picture taken in a public or private setting. Facebook users that signed up at the very least should have known they were giving them their data, otherwise how would it be free?

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No it does not. Studies must still follow HIPPA regulations and mask identifying data. Anonymized data doesn't prevent a study from being public.

Hello MCFUCKINGDUMBASS! That's the point. His rules say that if you follow HIPPA regulations, the EPA can not use them because they are not 'transparent.' That is Pruitt's definition of transparency here.

How is this so hard to understand?

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Rhipf]

So none of those studies (i.e. no studies) would be use under this ruling. :-)

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The EPA doesn't and has never made policy based on the results of a single test. They even used to employ their own researchers to reproduce results independently. This attack on the EPA is perpetuated by supporters of fracking mostly and the science behinds adding lubricants under high pressure causing slippage underground creating earthquakes is pretty well established at this point.

If you look at all the regulations they are repealing right now you'll see it only helps companies pollute more which will inevitably lead to new superfund sites costing the tax payers money to clean up rather than requiring the company to take steps beforehand to prevent the mess in the first place.

Tell me this, is prevention cheaper than treatment?

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost all public health data can be used once it's de-identified.

On what basis do you make that claim? There are literally a thousand scientists who say otherwise.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

FISA warrants are bad because the evidence is secret.
EPA transparency is bad because the evidence is public.

FISA warrants are issued with "secret evidence" to violate the rights of citizens. The current EPA proposal for "transparency" would violate the rights of citizens.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

someone is 37, a non-smoker, takes over-the-counter asprin, and has high-blood pressure

None of that information tells you who the patient is, it does not reveal their identity... Adding that the same person "had cancer in a time frame" does not revel their identity - to use that information to arrive at an identity would require you to already know the person and know they had cancer "in a certain time period" before you could identify who the patient is - the only problem is you haven't revealed anything, you already knew the identity of the patient that had cancer.

I can't remember where I read but yes you can still relate nowadays public information to pin point who the person is with that much information. There are direct and indirect information out there for you to associate with that vague information, believe me.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are misunderstanding the proposed change at the EPA. You're statement is accurate that identifying data can be masked. That is what the EPA currently does and what is being banned. All details have to be transparent per the new rules.

It should be easy to provide nuance here but Pruitt has not done so. He has no interest in the science, you can look at his history and make that determination for yourself. This will prevent the EPA from using most research as all details have to be made public.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[mrclevesque]

"... politicians chose to provide poisonous dirty Flint Mi. water, because the nibberized neighborhoods they served could not afford to pay for clean water. Most industry had moved to Mexico or China; nobody produced a thing of value to exchange for clean water. What is your issue? Nothing is free ... nobody has a right to anything they cannot buy at market price. Poor people = poor water; productive people = yummy clean water."

Nope. It starts with reckless polluting, which results in an artificial scarcity of clean water, which results in profits for the few at the expense of the rest, especially the poor.

Where capital goes, playing a captive labor force against another captive labor force, is secondary.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

That says nothing about that.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[rgbatduke]

I hear you and agree, but I doubt very much that you'll get any traction on /. with this observation, in spite of the fact that it actually has its own wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Note that this is a crisis already in the realm of openly published research results and conclusions. There isn't any good reason to think that the numbers cited in the Nature study are going to be any smaller for studies conducted by parties with even stronger (monetary or sociopolitical) vested interests, who don't even expose their results to the greater scientific community for checking and replication. And the numbers are terrible.

Look, it is only six or seven years now that we finally learned that dietary cholesterol and fat are almost completely irrelevant to heart disease, after being told nothing but the opposite for some fifty years, all of it stamped with "proven by real science":

https://academic.oup.com/advan...

Now imagine that a Dietary Protection Agency (DPA) had been created to deal with the "public health crisis" caused by high levels of fat and cholesterol in the US diet, and that they crafted regulations banning things like the open sale of cooking fats, the production of bacon, the sale of cheese and eggs. Suppose further that the "evidence" they cited to defend these draconian measures was -- precisely what was, in fact, used to support the argument that high fat = high cholesterol -- but that this data, instead of even being available to support the epidemiological study I just cited, was hidden behind a shroud of "patient confidentiality". BLTs would be a thing of the past, the sugar and carb industry and PETA would be crowing and slipping the DPA large sums under the table to ensure that the basis for its rules was never overly scrutinized to protect the meat animals that are the primary sources of dietary cholesterol, and the public would not be well served. At least with bacon and eggs, smothered in cheese sauce.

Finally, the joker who invoked "HIPPA" above as if he knew what he was talking about -- for starters, it is HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, whose purpose was to protect people from being denied insurance (for which it proved remarkably ineffectual) or employment (slightly better) on the basis of prior health history -- clearly missed the point that all published medical research is HIPAA compliant. HIPAA compliance isn't that difficult to arrange or manage in a study, and publishing methodology and results from such studies is the basis for every single published work in the field of evidence-based medicine, and even with open publication, there is a ton of non-reproducible crap that makes it out into the wild (like the cholesterol gaff, like the sugar/carb gaff) and stays there for years or even decades before independent work finally corrects it. No sane physician is going to base treatments on results from completely hidden work -- no methods, no data, just somebody saying "trust us, we've seen the methods and data and we totally believe them". That's not science, and it isn't evidence-based reasoning, it is just a glaring opportunity for confirmation bias, political bias, social bias, or plain old money to influence what should be an open process that makes mistakes all the time as it is, even when fully open.

To conclude, I honestly think the EPA doesn't get a bye on the open participation in Real Science, which involves things like peer review, reproducibility, double blind placebo controlled studies as opposed to stupid epidemiological correlations with unknown confounding variables, the open analysis of the statistical basis of claims, avoidance of data dredging, cherrypicking, and all of the other myriad aspects of Bad Science, science we don't get to see and criticize. I am quite certain

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[rgbatduke]

...or else there would be no medical journals, would there?

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[tonglebeak]

It's HIPAA, NOT HIPPA. Stop spreading the incorrect acronym around and further fueling the mass confusion that already exiss.

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[sexconker]

Actually they were asked, and agreed.

The strongest argument could be that agreements isn't valid because they didn't understand it. However if contracts can be thrown out because one party didn't understand, we have trouble.

What trouble, exactly? Trouble for corporations, insurers, employers, etc. who write one-sided, non-negotiable contracts that shit all over the slaves?
If a party enters into a contract without understanding it, then there's no meeting of the minds. If the other party was the one who wrote it, and you can show they knew or should have known that the first party didn't understand it, they fucking lose.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[sexconker]

You're modded -1: Absolutely Correct.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[sexconker]

No it doesn't.

Please cite the text that you think forbids basic anonymization.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

There is a special place in hell for those who downmod humor.

See, in Chicago, there's a running joke that the dead continue to vote. So if one was killed by a girder in Chicago, Republican or Democrat, as a dead person they'd continue voting for the DNC for the next few decades.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the acid came from leaves. It was tannic acid,

Stop lying, fuckface.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is absolutely the intent of the rule. The New EPA (tm) doesn't want to know what science says about things. Refusing to use health information that doesn't identify its individual study participants (and is therefore "not transparent"), despite the fact that it's both illegal and unethical to identify them, is particularly important under this regime because the law says they have to document health effects in order to regulate. So no acceptable data == duh!

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Obfuscant]

But it that identity is kept confidential at all the study couldn't be used by the EPA if this proposed rule is passed.

That is not true.

the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data

This is not a quote from the EPA, Scott Pruitt, or anyone involved in the process. It's a statement BY A NEWSPAPER that relies on click-through advertising to make a profit. It's hoopla and fearmongering.

First of all, screw "confidential industry data". If it's going to be the basis for a law, it needs to be public, and science needs to be reproducable. If you can't see what it is, you can't even begin to try to reproduce it, and it isn't science.

As for medical data, "confidential medical data" is called PII. Nothing requires that PII be released to make a medical study reproducable.

If you go back to the laws that are behind this, which the newspapers are calling a pet project of Lamar Smith, they don't require "confidential medical data" to be made public. They require the data behind the results of the study to be made public. That does NOT include PII. PII was exempted from the bills the house passed about this. "Joe Smith, aged 34, living at 123 Main Street, who has Type II diabetes was given ..." is NOT part of the results, and it is not data that is relevant to the results. "A study of 384 people aged 30 to 40 with T2DM were given ..." IS the data that is reportable. This should not be able to be hidden under the guise of "confidential data". There should be enough data so that the study can be reproduced -- and that doesn't require using exactly the same people again, it requires knowing what criteria were used to select them and how many, and what the results were.

The concept is pretty simple. If THE GOVERNMENT, which is supposed to be by, of and for the PEOPLE, is going to LIMIT what people can do based on SCIENCE, then that SCIENCE needs to be reviewable by the PUBLIC from whom the government gets its power. By fiat rule based on secrets is not how government should work.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[mrclevesque]

"No, the acid came from leaves. It was tannic acid,"

Supposing it was, what's your point?

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Straif]

No one seems to have the actual text of the rules change but the proposed legislation it was based off of (the HONEST act) is available and states very clearly:

"Personally identifiable information, trade secrets, or commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential must be redacted prior to public availability."

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was funny enough for me to mod it up despite the partisan reference. Quickly went back down. SAD.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Straif]

The rules change is supposed to be based on the HONEST act which specifically states that while the details and methods of the study must be public for review/reproducability:

"Personally identifiable information, trade secrets, or commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential must be redacted prior to public availability."

If Pruitt changed the wording of his rule even after meeting with Smith, the author of the HONEST act, no one has shown so.

As for the EPA's current procedures, nothing requires them to disclose any of the details to the studies used for their decision making. They routinely use data from studies they do not make public which allows them to pick and choose which pieces of data they like with no means of an outside source to verify their claims. That doesn't mean that there is some nefarious plan for them to control the US through over-regulation but when some of their rules can have billion dollar impacts it is important for people to be able to double check their work.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Obfuscant]

This attack on the EPA is perpetuated by supporters of fracking mostly and the science behinds adding lubricants under high pressure causing slippage underground creating earthquakes is pretty well established at this point.

Then there is no reason for this "well established" data to be considered "confidential" or "proprietary", is there? If it is well established and public then this new rule will change nothing at all.

If you look at all the regulations they are repealing right now you'll see it only helps companies pollute more

It's creating scientifically supportable regulation, not overzealous "no pollution is the only acceptable pollution". If you cannot scientifically support a public harm at X ppm of something, then the legal limit should not be 10% of X or lower. And trying to claim that "OMG, some awful corporation is killing us by emitting 1% of X of something into the water" is just dishonest.

You say "pollute more" to pollute the discussion with scare tactics, when the fact is that setting the limits so far below any provable harm levels IS more expensive than performing no cleanup. "Zero" is a lovely but unachievable goal, and casting anything but "zero" as "pollute more" is fear mongering.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh bullshit. 6 foot hallways are required for every other medical facility.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The concept is pretty simple. If THE GOVERNMENT, which is supposed to be by, of and for the PEOPLE, is going to LIMIT what people can do based on SCIENCE, then that SCIENCE needs to be reviewable by the PUBLIC from whom the government gets its power. By fiat rule based on secrets is not how government should work

People are too stupid and greedy to be second-guessing the government. Let the government experts rule. EPA should just enact needed Federal regulations and not be hamstrung by having to prove anything to mouth-breathers.

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The general population disagrees or Facebook wouldn't be as successful as they are.

Agrees? Or has never thought about it?

Re: Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off.

The general population has no clue the implications of what they have done.

Hate to break it to you but the general population are dumb fucks. That's why people like Zuck need to be put in check.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[DamnOregonian]

Why the hell are you gaslighting so hard?
There is absolutely a reason for "well established" data to be considered "confidential"
Many medical studies' underlying data is confidential. It is not publicly available. It is available, though. You're implying that not-publicly-available means not-available. Like it's made up numbers. It isn't.
The fact that the public cannot verify the data doesn't mean the data is not peer reviewed (and reviewed by EPA scientists themselves)

You're spreading a whole bunch of bullshit to spin a blatant attempt at discounting the majority of medical studies from regulation consideration. Shame on you, shithead.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[Obfuscant]

There is absolutely a reason for "well established" data to be considered "confidential"

I hope you can provide an example.

Many medical studies' underlying data is confidential.

That example has already been discussed and shown to be incorrect. The PII that you think is being required as supporting medical data is not required. While PII is confidential, the data FROM the study is NOT. Data that says "395 individuals with T2DM participated in a study of ... and X had side-effect Y..." is simply not confidential medical data that needs to be kept secret. Now, if they said "DamnOregonian exhibited fainting spells...", that would be, but the fact that "DamnOregonian" was a test subject is completely irrelevant and NOT part of the data necessary to regulate anything, and is NOT part of the "underlying data" that needs to be reviewable.

If you have a study that you don't want to release the data from because it is "confidential" or "proprietary", that's fine. Don't expect it to be considered when making PUBLIC law. If you don't want people to know that 25% of your test subjects had horrendous side effects from testing with your drug, then keep that data secret -- and don't expect the FDA to approve your drug when you won't tell them that. But don't cry that you have to release data that you don't have to release or pretend that you can't release anything because PII is protected.

You're spreading a whole bunch of bullshit to spin a blatant attempt at discounting the majority of medical studies from regulation consideration.

That claim is bullshit, and you know it. Medical study data is easily reviewable without releasing confidential information. The FDA REQUIRES it, and it is part of many product data sheets. Not only the FDA, but many journals require open access to data used in scientific articles. I have read countless papers that discuss your alleged "confidential medical data" used in numerous studies of various drugs. In fact, there are many papers that do "medical studies" that don't actually collect any data of their own, they use published, public data from other studies (this is called a "meta-study"). None of that data is truly confidential after all. There is no reason for it to be unless you are trying to keep trade secrets, and trade secrets are bad bases for public law.

Lots of people have pointed this fact out, in this and previous discussions on this topic. Ignore it at your peril.

Shame on you, shithead.

I'm sorry, is ad hominem supposed to be acceptable for supporting scientific arguments these days? Shame on you. But, if you can't do more than parrot the nonsense about "confidential medical data" being necessary for regulation, then ad hominem it must be.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[DamnOregonian]

I hope you can provide an example.

I literally did that in the next line you responded to.

That example has already been discussed and shown to be incorrect. The PII that you think is being required as supporting medical data is not required. While PII is confidential, the data FROM the study is NOT. Data that says "395 individuals with T2DM participated in a study of ... and X had side-effect Y..." is simply not confidential medical data that needs to be kept secret. Now, if they said "DamnOregonian exhibited fainting spells...", that would be, but the fact that "DamnOregonian" was a test subject is completely irrelevant and NOT part of the data necessary to regulate anything, and is NOT part of the "underlying data" that needs to be reviewable.

This entire ball of fuckery stems from a fight over chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate pesticide that has been show to not have *any* safe dose.
The EPA has been trying to get the *raw* (see: specifically- non-anonymized) data from the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health (the folks who ran the study largely responsible for the banning of chlorpyrifos from home use.
The CCCEH has refused, saying it would offer them anonymized data. This was unacceptable to the EPA. Finally, the EPA agreed to anonymized data.
The intent of this rule is to prevent annoyances like this in the future. To prevent bans of things like organophosphates and to smear the science linking them to bad outcomes. It isn't even clear that the wording of this proposal allows for anonymized data. Given the fact that the EPA would only accept non-anonymized data for half a decade, it's fair to assume anonymization of raw data sources isn't even acceptable after this rule.

That claim is bullshit, and you know it. Medical study data is easily reviewable without releasing confidential information. The FDA REQUIRES it, and it is part of many product data sheets. Not only the FDA, but many journals require open access to data used in scientific articles. I have read countless papers that discuss your alleged "confidential medical data" used in numerous studies of various drugs. In fact, there are many papers that do "medical studies" that don't actually collect any data of their own, they use published, public data from other studies (this is called a "meta-study"). None of that data is truly confidential after all. There is no reason for it to be unless you are trying to keep trade secrets, and trade secrets are bad bases for public law.

Are you trying to argue that since meta-studies exist, studies with raw datasets that have PII in them do not? I'm beginning to think you're just a really dim-witted human. What's the point of providing examples when that logic is so glaringly bad?

I'm sorry, is ad hominem supposed to be acceptable for supporting scientific arguments these days? Shame on you. But, if you can't do more than parrot the nonsense about "confidential medical data" being necessary for regulation, then ad hominem it must be.

No, that ad hominem wasn't to support my argument. I was just pointing out that you are a spin-doctor shithead. Feed your own fucking children organophosphates.

Re:Before saying it is good or bad : example ?

[jenningsthecat]

You're talking about HIPPA regulations...

"HIPPA"? It's HIPAA, dammit! As in Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Real Science is Reproducible

[Anonymous Coward]

If the research data and methodology is hidden so as to be unreproducible, it doesn't qualify to be labeled as science. It is simply proprietary assertions. That the EPA has been using such to justify its partisan policymaking is a shame and a scandal.

Re:Real Science is Reproducible

[hey!]

Not disclosing public health data does not make a result non-reproducible. It just makes it less convenient to reproduce.

In your conception of "reproducible", gravity wave detection is not science, because you can't reproduce the detection of any specific event.

Do you want to end up watering crops with Brawndo?

[Jeremi]

Because this is how you end up watering your crops with Brawndo.

Re:Yes!

[bobbuck]

Yep. Secret science means the EPA can target anyone they don't like, regardless of legitimate environmental issues.

This is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as the CEO will eat their products / byproducts / wastes. I'm sure it's safe, as they wouldn't make any stuff that is dangerous.

CAPTCHA: exempt

I'd prefer limiting laws to scientific ones.

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean: All laws must be based on solid research. Period.
Everything else is considered dictatorship and treason, and its creators given the choice beween losing citizenship and be expelled for e^(n+1) years, or go to prison for the same time. (And if they try to get back into the country earlier, shot. Plus, of they try to manipulate the country from the outside, we will come after them.)

Re:I'd prefer limiting laws to scientific ones.

[hey!]

"Solid research" means meeting the normal standards for research in that field.

I've actually worked with public health data, and the standard for exchanging data is to aggregate that data in such a way that personally identifiable information is not recoverable. For example when you report an HIV case, you know the person lives at 123 Maple Street, but you instead report it as occurring within a geographic area that contains enough people that it's not feasible to work out who that person is, even if you combine it with other data.

That's the usual standard. If you ask for surveillance data, you get sanitized data, never raw data. It may limit the kinds of conclusions you draw, but it doesn't undermine the validity of the conclusion you *do* draw.

Re: I'd prefer limiting laws to scientific ones.

[mapkinase]

I worked with such sanitized data. Geography is reduced to a state and time reduced to a year. That was definitely not enough to do science.

Re: I'd prefer limiting laws to scientific ones.

[aquacrayfish]

I'm pretty sure a patient's privacy is more important than a third party wanting their information for a study or experiment. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Re: I'd prefer limiting laws to scientific ones.

[hey!]

That's less precise than is usual. Week/county is more typical in infectious disease surveillance. But in any case, it's not the case that even that's "not enough to do science". It's not enough to do a lot of things you might want, but I've seen results with not much more than that precision that were useful (e.g. the spread of the Asian Tiger Mosquito from its introduction through California plant nurseries).

Re: I'd prefer limiting laws to scientific ones.

[sexconker]

The fact that you said "do science" makes me think you don't actually "do science".

I bet you think the Mythbusters were great scientists! Sure, maybe their shitty explosions and lack of science were bad, but they got people INTERESTED in shitty explosions and lack of science!!

Look up "false flag" and "agent provocateur".

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try though.

Won't work anymore though. With the Snowden leaks, we now know, how readily those strategies are used both by all governments and all big industries.

Re:Look up "false flag" and "agent provocateur".

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you look those terms up yourself. Because nothing of the post you replied to can be considered matching either of those terms.

Why

[Anonymous Coward]

More tax allocations for public research. Use the confidential and proprietary information that the EPA still accesses as openly as before as a hints to guide the public "parallel construction" of research. More jobs.

prevents them from vetting the research underpinning the EPA's often costly regulatory requirements.

So why would they do this? Are the companies ready to spend their little research budgets to replicate EPA findings? Too much money must burn like hell..

Literally textbook psychopathy:

[Anonymous Coward]

> externalities, which they could otherwise ignore and cut corner.

That is literally textbook psychopath behavior. Healthy humans don't murder because empaty and being social tells them that that's pretty much always bad for the social group, including oneself. Psychopaths don't murder because they might be punished. Otherwise they'd do it for a fistful of profit^Wpeanuts.

Re:Literally textbook psychopathy:

[Anonymous Coward]

socialpsychological twaddle. Moderns like to pretend that humans are basically decent, peaceful creatures who are empathetic and social, while 100,000 years of history prove humans are violent self-seeking survivalist who will do just about anything to get one over on their fellow creatures. The Roman Empire wasn't built on empathy. The Aztecs didn't tear the heart out of living men because they had empathy.
As for trusting research where the data is hidden, businesses are right to be suspicious of rules based on data that can't be reviewed by everyone.
Privacy is a modern concept, and a misguided one. Behave as if your every action is being done in the public square. If you are doing something you don't want people to know about, maybe you shouldn't be doing it. That holds for businesses and individuals.

Re:Literally textbook psychopathy:

[vtcodger]

"That is literally textbook psychopath behavior."

Well, sure. But remember that we're largely talking about corporations and their data. AFAICS, corporations are basically sociopathic so a bit of psychopathy in the interest of the shareholders is probably to be expected.

Re: Literally textbook psychopathy:

[Anonymous Coward]

1. I close the door when I poop, even though I'm not ashamed that I poop. Stop trying to get me to open it, you weirdo.

2. Nobody doubts the existence of sociopaths. Nobody doubts that they sometimes gain power. But you're assuming everyone is shitty based on the fact that history books are full of people being shitty.

This is because history books do not contain the details of the 20 billion lives that were lived with nearly no violence, just groups of people living in tribes and selling each other things, because it would be pretty boring if you included that stuff.

Oh grow up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you even think beyond the pre-programmed rigid static one-dimensional binary extremes, of which not one, but *both* are distorted strawmen?

Seriously, you are a full human being, .. sitting there ... shouting phrases that would make an IS member tell you to take it down a notch and start pondering.

What happened to your life, man?
Seriously, I mean this with the best possible intentions. Not taking any "sides".

Go outside! Leave the country! Find a beautiful spot, where the people are nice and the drinks too.

Do you really want *this* to be your life? ... what you are?

Can you even feel me? :-/

Re:Oh grow up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Weak troll.

Re:Oh grow up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even weaker.

Fracking recipes, too?

[ediron2]

Is this end-to-unattributed data going to have a fat, juicy exception written for fracking compounds? Asking for my grandkids.

Re:Fracking recipes, too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this end-to-unattributed data going to have a fat, juicy exception written for fracking compounds? Asking for my grandkids.

Yes. Not joking. We have the FOIA'd emails to prove they were designing loopholes to exempt corporate data from the transparency requirements.

...mails between several EPA political appointees, including Nancy Beck, a former staffer for the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the chemical industry’s trade association; and Richard Yamada, a former staffer for House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, show that the small group was grappling with how to incorporate loopholes and exemptions to limit the impact of the directive on industry data.

Ask yourself

[Kohath]

Do you want the Trump Administration to make new environmental rules based on secret science?

Re:Ask yourself

[bankman]

Do you want the Trump Administration to make new environmental rules based on secret science?

I don't want the Trump Administration to make any new environmental rules because they can be trusted to protect anything and anyone but the environment and the public.

Re:Ask yourself

[Zontar The Mindless]

It's OK, folks--Kohath's merely asking a question.

Re:Ask yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you want Trump to make evaluation of whether it's science or not based on what they think they should be getting? "Oh, it's john doe? How can I check with him if I can't TALK to him! SECRET DATA!!!!".

Re: Ask yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you want the Trump Administration to make new environmental rules based on secret science?

Given Trump's behavior (low on facts, high on yelling), as well as Scott Pruitt's paranoid security expenses, we can't accept any of their behavior as rational, appropriate, or otherwise within the bounds of propriety. Therefore, they can't be allowed to make rules at all.

Sorry, but their lack of integrity has compromised their ability to take action.

It is a consequence of their own decisions, they have been recognized as duplicitous, hysterical, and avaricous, among other qualities.

Except by their partisan stalwarts who will never understand because they are emotionally committed to believing the lie.

Scott Pruitt just announced more transparency

[rsilvergun]

in his administration. No joke, he didn't invite the press...

Empirical Analysis

[KidSock]

Sounds like they need to further develop their hypothesis, conduct trials to collect data, establish a control group, analyze the data and present their findings for peer review to determine precisely how much Science should be permitted at the EPA.

Wittgenstein and the Limits of Science

[js290]

http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am...

Re:Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking moron.

There's actually another, unintended effect.

[hey!]

The intent may be to hobble the use of public health data, but it will may also force pesticide companies to publish trade secrets in order to have their products registered for legal use. At present this data is treated as confidential by the EPA.

This will not only affect new pesticides, it could also affect already registered pesticides, even if you grandfathered in the original registration. That's because a new registration number needs to be issued whenever the manufacturer changes any of the inert ingredients in the formulation, or even makes changes to the the production processes.

Re:There's actually another, unintended effect.

[whoever57]

but it will may also force pesticide companies to publish trade secrets in order to have their products registered for legal use. At present this data is treated as confidential by the EPA.

Very funny!

No. Your prediction is wrong. Approvals for pesticides are not "rulemaking".

Here is a hint: if you think that a change that the administration is making isn't intended to benefit large companies, you are almost certainly wrong.

Re:There's actually another, unintended effect.

[rhazz]

may also force pesticide companies to publish trade secrets in order to have their products registered for legal use

I'm pretty sure all necessary lobbyers had their chance to review and revise the regulations before their sock-puppet pushed them.

+5 good explanation

[aepervius]

I was thinking of the result, but if the bill also require patient confidentiality to be broken then it is definitively intentional shenanigan from the industry parts. The points taken up by the UCS are very valid.

Re:+5 good explanation

[Derekloffin]

It's not necessarily shenanigan's even then, just a conflict of rules and goals, a very common thing in governing. It is actually quite rare when pushing one principle does not force compromises in others. Something always has to give. Here the conflict seems to be between making the rule making process transparent verses the privacy of the individuals in the studies. Both a things to strive for, but they are directly at odds here.

Re:+5 good explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the data can be scrubbed / anonymized...

Re:+5 good explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not necessarily shenanigan's even then,

Oh puhlease. Are there any mental gymnastics that you won't perform to excuse this?

If there is one person who should not be given the benefit of the doubt, its pruitt.

Lobbyists have their lips firmly plant around Pruitt's dick. He bought a house from one for $100K below market price and the client company that he hired the lobbyist made up the difference. And then he installed the lobbyist into a high-ranking position in the EPA...

Re:+5 good explanation

[aquacrayfish]

For an obscure law or regulation, sure, I'm willing to cut some slack. Patient confidentiality is a known entity, however. It's one of the most sacrosanct laws we have, imo. To claim it is unintentional to have these two potential laws at odds is... nonsense. Lawmakers are on a long trend of trying to use the law as a weapon instead of shield, especially when it comes to political hot buttons like EPA and abortion. Don't be naive.

Re:+5 good explanation

[fish_in_the_c]

So right and that is something just as much on the left as on the right. However, that doesn't mean any given policy when evaluated on it's own merits should be opposed simply because it comes from the side of the isle you don't stand on. To me if your data-sets aren't available for peer review, then basically no on can tell if you actually did science or just cooked the books and applied a convenient method. I don't see where 'confidentiality' should be a problem. It is easy enough to clean data and divorce it from specific individuals. The point is the data you claim to be using and the methods you claim to apply should be freely available for scrutiny by others. Including, not being combined by 'proprietary' processes that no one else can attempt to reproduce, or you aren't actually doing science. Nothing can be considered proved 'scientifically' without significant predictability. If you are choosing between doing science and making a profit. Your choice. You can't pervert the scientific method simply because it is convenient without expect to equally pervert the scientific credibility of your conclusions. Which is basically what this policy is attempting to address.

Re:+5 good explanation

[aquacrayfish]

If the concern is that confidential health information needs to become public in order to confirm studies under this bill is accurate, then it's a law written in bad faith. That's the point. If you can reproduce findings in a study without the part of a record that ties an identity to the relevant medical data then there is no issue with the scientific method.

Now, maybe, that's not what this bill is attempting to do, but I have yet to read anything on this that doesn't make me suspicious. And the historic trend of this current EPA tenure on removing scientists from decision making I am not confident that there's a sudden honest desire to protect the scientific method.

Re:+5 good explanation

[sexconker]

Patient confidentiality has little to do with the "confidential data" referred to. They're referring to data that is kept from other researchers not for patient confidentiality, but for trade secret, fuck you I'm not sharing my research, etc. type bullshit. They may claim patient confidentiality as the reason, but it's trivial to anonymize data or allow an audit or even just give them all of the data as long as they say they'll protect it.

Here's how you comply with HIPAA:

1) Get the other party to say they're HIPAA compliant. You can then give them everything.

-OR-

1) Take your relevant data and cut out the patient's name, address, ID number, etc.
2) Assign new, random IDs to your anonymized dataset.
3) Optional - give a 3rd party a map that includes the new random IDs and the original unique identifier(s), but no medical data.

The anonymized dataset from step 2 can be shared and used by all researchers. If you keep this confidential and don't let other researchers see it to reproduce / question your results, you're a piece of shit.

The optional step 3 is useful in case you find something of note in your research and want to further explore it using something that potentially partially deanonymizes patients. Address, age, race, sex, etc.
For example, maybe your first anonymized set included State, but you then want to narrow by zip code. Or maybe your first set included age ranges of 0-25, 26-50, 51-75, 75+ and you want to explore an anomaly you found in the 0-25 group, so you further break it down. You could create a new set with ranges of 0-4, 5-9, etc, perhaps without other information your first pass deemed to be uncorrelated (such as sex or weight) to offset the deanonymization caused by the refinement of age.

Creating a mapping is also useful if you later increase the size of your dataset but you want to specifically exclude (or include) people you've already selected and studied, or if you get a separate dataset and you want to prevent duplicates/overlaps. You'd get your new / combined dataset, give only the unique identifiers to the third party, have them use your previous map and kick you back a new list of those unique identifiers with whatever criteria you want (people excluded/included/deduped). You then take their set and inner join it to your full set and create a new anonymized set. Again, you have the option of giving them a new mapping for this new set.

Re:Do you want to end up watering crops with Brawn

[Anonymous Coward]

What in the world, how do you even draw that conclusion let alone be modded insightful?? Assuming the summary is even remotely accurate this would counter that exact situation.

Under the new proposals, the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data.

Translation - They can't hide behind it. I would have thought Scientists are FOR this kind of thing since it would allow them to duplicate or disprove the results no?

I'm seriously quite confused about the backlash over this.

Skeptical Science

[AlanObject]

I am skeptical of any Trump associate (or even any guy Trump likes) proclaiming they are trying to make a government agency more transparent. Remember this is the guy who insisted on a bug sweep of his government office and also installed an expensive privacy phone booth, and insists on a security detail greater than that of most 3rd world dictators. He gets favors like cheap rent from industry lobbyists and then tries to lie about it.

And, for good measure, freely uses taxpayer money for luxury travel so lavish that even Trump has to notice.

So spare me protestations that this member of the Trump clown show is going to make anything better at the EPA for anyone except his industry executive friends and that any criticism is just anti-Trump bias. For someone to have faith in him doing the right thing they would have to be delusional, ignorant, partisan or any combination.

Re:Skeptical Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you explain why requiring open access to data is a bad thing?

It should be the default for all science, if the intent is to actually to replicate results and advance knowledge and it's only the self-interest of the parties involved that prevents it.

Re: Skeptical Science

[Anonymous Coward]

You tell 'em, Billy! $0.50 has been deposited in your Shareblue account.

Re:Skeptical Science

[Opportunist]

Why single out Trump, you really think there is a single politician left who isn't just interested in lining his own pockets and would harvest and sell your organs if he thought he'd get away with it?

Re: Skeptical Science

[Anonymous Coward]

So nothing ever changes? There's never been an improvement in legislation ever? This kind of thinking is stupid, no room for nuance or grades of value.

Re: Skeptical Science

[Opportunist]

There has, and the older ones among us might even remember such a time.

Re: Skeptical Science

[kenh]

Trump admin called for it, so it must be bad - don't bother with details of facts!

Re:Skeptical Science

[AlanObject]

Why single out Trump, you really think there is a single politician left who isn't just interested in lining his own pockets and would harvest and sell your organs if he thought he'd get away with it?

#1: The article was about a a Trump appointee and crony.

#2: There are many politicians and even more career bureaucrats who are community minded, idealistic, and work hard from the common good. I am not going to name names here because I don't want to get into a shitstorm of denials and misinformation.

#3: I will, however, point out that every time I see a statement like this, I remember there is one woman who has been investigated pretty much constantly for over a quarter of a century by the most nasty and mean legislators and political operatives using over $100M of taxpayer money to do so. A media network including Fox News, all right wing radio, and several print publications are fully dedicated to to defaming her. There has been no such thing as a crackpot theory or accusation that was too extreme to investigate. After all this she has not been indicted or convicted of one single crime.

Re: Skeptical Science

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are ok with medical studies publicizing who in the study has HIV etc? That's cool with you that the government gets to out people who participate in studies? ok.

Re:Skeptical Science

[Anonymous Coward]

So people who participate in a medical study should have their medical conditions revealed to the world? ok.

Re:Skeptical Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of the data is health data, which is HIPPA controlled, thus the purpose of this law is to prevent most data from being admissible when making regulations, thus preventing regulation, by the regulator.

Yes, it sounds well and good, but the purpose is to keep science out rather than make it better.

Re:Skeptical Science

[Green Mountain Bot]

This isn't requiring researchers open their data. This is banning the agency from using existing data. It's not the same thing, it won't have the same result, and it isn't intended to.

Re: Skeptical Science

[Green Mountain Bot]

It's called a track record.

Re:Skeptical Science

[Anonymous Coward]

...she has not been indicted or convicted of one single crime.

Right. And Lance Armstrong never failed a single drug test.

Re: Skeptical Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo! Reputation is important in both science and government. Reputation is based on actions and explanations. This administration didn't take long to establish a reputation for being actively ignorant of the facts, unless they support actions in benefit only of the paying public (e.g. those who make campaign contributions denominated at least in $*10^5) interest.

Re:Skeptical Science

[Anonymous Coward]

you really think there is a single politician left who isn't just interested in lining his own pockets and would harvest and sell your organs if he thought he'd get away with it?

Fuck you and your pepe nihilism. Its assholes like you who make it easy for politicians to act in bad-faith because when you say they are all bad you give the worst permission to be corrupt and you chase away the best by telling them no matter how good they act, you will never give them credit.

If your life is so hopeless and you are so helpless in this world, just shut the fuck up and let the people who do care get on with holding our politicians to account.

Re:Skeptical Science

[HeckRuler]

We actually kinda WANT people to investigate this stuff. 4th estate and all that jazz. If it's crackpots... they'll hopefully say as much (rather than giving them their own talk show...).

And... technically... for all the taxpayer money put into the Mueller investigation, all the investigation and commentary from (nearly all) news organizations, heads of states, the pope... Trump also hasn't been indicted or convicted of one single crime. ...yet.

He probably should be. I kinda wish they'd pull that trigger already. Then again, given what I read about how she handled classified information, Hilary should probably also have been charged. She would have been had she been "one of the little people". But law and order apparently works differently for the upper chaste.

Re:Skeptical Science

[AlanObject]

Then again, given what I read about how she handled classified information, Hilary should probably also have been charged. She would have been had she been "one of the little people".

Exactly what do you think she should have been charged with? None of the congressional investigations nor the FBI ever came up with something that could be referred for an indictment. Do you think they were covering for her because she was not one of the "little people"?

I'll grant you that many people want her charged. (lock her up!). But their desire (for whatever reason) is not a legal justification and it sure isn't due process.

Re:Skeptical Science

[strikethree]

I will, however, point out that every time I see a statement like this, I remember there is one woman who has been investigated pretty much constantly for over a quarter of a century by the most nasty and mean legislators and political operatives using over $100M of taxpayer money to do so. A media network including Fox News, all right wing radio, and several print publications are fully dedicated to to defaming her. There has been no such thing as a crackpot theory or accusation that was too extreme to investigate. After all this she has not been indicted or convicted of one single crime.

It is amazing at what being a wealthy insider can do for investigations.

Re:Skeptical Science

[HeckRuler]

Probably "Mishandling Classified Material". She used a personal email server for business. That wasn't illegal at the time she did it. But sending classified information to it would get a normal person charged.

Classified information in emails
In various interviews, Clinton has said that "I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified."[97] However, in June and July 2016, a number of news outlets reported that Clinton's emails did include messages with classification "portion markings".[98][99] The FBI investigation found that 110 messages contained information that was classified at the time it was sent. Sixty-five of those emails were found to contain information classified as "Secret"; more than 20 contained "Top-Secret" information.[100][101] Three emails, out of 30,000, were found to be marked as classified, although they lacked classified headers and were only marked with a small "c" in parentheses, described as "portion markings" by Comey. He added it was possible Clinton was not "technically sophisticated" enough to understand what the three classified markings meant.[102][103][104]

Clinton personally wrote 104 of the 2,093 emails that were retroactively[105][106][107] found to contain information classified as "confidential." "[53][108] Of the remaining emails that were classified after they were sent, Clinton aide Jake Sullivan wrote the most, at 215.[105]

Do you think the FBI director would give two shits if you pleaded that you didn't know it was classified?

None of the congressional investigations nor the FBI ever came up with something that could be referred for an indictment. Do you think they were covering for her because she was not one of the "little people"?

Yes.

Ummm... did the Trump administration just do good?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the Trump administration just do something that's actually good for a change?

The HEADLINE made me think this would be bad. But requiring all the science data to be available is a GOOD thing.

Now, I hate Pruitt and everyone else involved in this shitshow, but ... it looks like they actually did something positive for a change.

I’m with the Evil Death Industries on this o

[Applehu Akbar]

Environmental regulations should be strictly based on science, but it should be on published research with publicly available, peer reviewable data.

Reproducibility?

[mveloso]

Without data and methods, the study can't be reproduced, so the conclusions can't be challenged.

That's not science.

Anonymize the data. That's what everyone else does. Or compel data from the entities in question. Compelling data is only a rule change away.

Re:Reproducibility?

[omnichad]

Anonymize the data. That's what everyone else does.

That's specifically what this rule is proposed to prevent. That constitutes the confidential data that is not being disclosed, and thereby the entire research is excluded from EPA consideration. And due to HIPAA and the unlikelihood that patients will all sign a release for their medical information, that's exactly what would happen.

Re:Reproducibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what the rule says. It bans research which is underpinned by confidential data. Now, nobody ever releases _all_ data regarding a research, any research. The question is whether _relevant_ data is held back. We don't need to know personal identification for a medical research to have validity (see: current standards in medical research), ergo this data is not underpinning an anonymized research and it can be consulted under the new rule while being HIPAA compatible.

Re:Reproducibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh hell NO! That data belongs to the corporations. Science needs to get their own data we aren't socialist! #MAGA

Re:Reproducibility?

[mvdwege]

Or, maybe, just let the corps negotiate for that data themselves for their counterstudies?

Re:Reproducibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

" confidential medical and industry data"

"Hi! We at Company XYZ are surprised to see that our contaminants level in our wastewater discharge is so damn high. Because of that, we would like the results to be made private.":

Comes with a unique profile of elements (Regardless of levels) that the industry is known, interacts only with the local geography. Would be easy to identify. Can't publish at all.

YAY for not reading and understanding.

Re:Reproducibility?

[omnichad]

You seem to know a lot about the wording of this rule. Did you find a source for the full text? Until then, I remain very skeptical - as my interpretation lines up with the current administrations goals very well.

Re:Reproducibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you find a source for the full text?

1 second of googling later...

Re:Reproducibility?

[HeckRuler]

Typically you wouldn't use other people's insightfulness into the issue as a means to question them.

my interpretation lines up with the current administrations goals very well.

Yeeeeaaaaahhhh, that certainly isn't earning you any points either considering the current administration's goals are to dismantle the EPA. You're lined up with pretty blatant bullshit.

Re:Reproducibility?

[omnichad]

You're lined up with pretty blatant bullshit.

I'm not lined up with it you illiterate. My interpretation of this new EPA rule matches perfectly, though. Why would they go and try to embrace valid scientific research that would disagree with their conclusions?

Re:Reproducibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they go and try to embrace valid scientific research that would disagree with their conclusions?

The same reason they fired all the actual scientists from the science advisory board and filled it with corporate representatives.

Re:Do you want to end up watering crops with Brawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, any study involving patient data has confidential medical data, because it's against the law to release personally identifiable health information. Therefore, the EPA will no longer be able to incorporate any medical science of any kind in its decisions. Brand new industrial process releases poison gasses that would sterilize whole regions? Too bad the EPA can't rely on studies saying it kills people, because the study was a medical study.

That's just an extreme example, but this is a pretty sweeping, extreme change.

Re:I’m with the Evil Death Industries on thi

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine. Please release the results of your latest colonoscopy to the public domain so we can use it to help formulate public policy.

Re:Yes!

[omnichad]

Yeah, let's get a test environment set up, stat. And by environment, I guess I mean a duplicate Earth? That doesn't sound all that practical, you know.

Re:Ummm... did the Trump administration just do go

[omnichad]

But requiring all the science data to be available is a GOOD thing.

Unless the science data can't be made available, thereby invalidating all research that involves medical side effects. This is just a way to prevent science from being used because it proves too much.

Pot, Kettle, Bang

[Anonymous Coward]

"weaponize transparency". Where on Earth do you shills^Wpeople think this shit up. Or is truth no longer acceptable when it doesn't fit your narrative?

Hello anonymous! By your own logic, we should not take into account your criticisms because you have not been fully transparent yourself.

Re:Pot, Kettle, Bang

[Anonymous Coward]

"weaponize transparency". Where on Earth do you shills^Wpeople think this shit up. Or is truth no longer acceptable when it doesn't fit your narrative?

Hello anonymous! By your own logic, we should not take into account your criticisms because you have not been fully transparent yourself.

Maybe to you. I can see right through him.

I wonder how /. would feel

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how /. would feel if confidential company data was used to undo or lighten some EPA environmental regulation.

Re:I wonder how /. would feel

[Opportunist]

If the data shows that we need more CO2, more NOx and more SO2 in our atmosphere, by all means do it!

Re: I wonder how /. would feel

[kenh]

Requiring publicly-accessible for all environmental decisions, either increasing or rolling back regulations is a good thing, and the technology needed to minimize medical data to confirm with hills is trivial - unless the Trump administration calls for it, then his critics insist that true science requires decisions based on secret datasets!

Re:Yes!

[Zontar The Mindless]

Cite some of them. Please, go right ahead.

Re:I’m with the Evil Death Industries on thi

[bankman]

Environmental regulations should be strictly based on science, but it should be on published research with publicly available, peer reviewable data.

Absolutely! I would in fact propose a law that requires any company that challenges EPA regulation based on this argument to open all their own books and research in the interest of transparency.
 

Re:Ummm... did the Trump administration just do go

[Zontar The Mindless]

No, it did not. This is merely a trick to make it feasible to discount public health data in making public health decisions that might put a damper on profit.

All tax paid reseach should be public domain

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing should be secret when it comes to epa regulations

obat ejakulasi dini permanen

[hilmanawaludin]

obat ejakulasi dini permanen

Hurray for Pruitt

[Anonymous Coward]

But I'm afraid lots of double-dealing EPA staff are going to be really butt-hurt that their main source of income and influence is drying up. Guess they'll just make up some charges and go judge shopping for a reprieve.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What else do you expect from the...

[Anonymous Coward]

Environmental Pollution Agency?

Re:What else do you expect from the...

[Anonymous Coward]

Environment Plundering Agency

Re: Yes!

[Reverend Green]

Secret laws, secret courts, tyranny.

Secret data, secret science, charlatanism.

US on their way back

[prefec2]

Under the current administration, the train to the past has picked up speed. The US is converting itself into a fascist and religious fundamentalist country which hates science, bullies others and has nukes. If you have a problem with Iran having nukes, then such country should not have nukes too.

Re:US on their way back

[Anonymous Coward]

Shills shouldn't be on slashdot. Hysterics are for reddit.

Re:US on their way back

[DNS-and-BIND]

Donald Trump is such a terrifying fascist dictator that literally nobody fears speaking about him on any platform.

THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM-BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State.

Now of all the players in American politics today, which group does this best describe?

Re:US on their way back

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're looking for a particular label, without the understanding that it's all of those labels.

Let's stop pretending there is more than one side to the machine.

Re:US on their way back

[Opportunist]

The difference is that by now our leaders found out that it means jack shit if people talk. If anything, it keeps them from revolting because they think they still have freedom.

Re:US on their way back

[prefec2]

First of all I did not say that Trump is fascist dictator. I also did not say that the US is a fascist state. My point is that the Us is moving towards conditions which resemble a totalitarian police state including white chauvinism (that is the declaration of race the the claim of superiority of the white race). And that is pretty much what fascism is built on. If you look at your Mussolini quote, you can see that the collectivism excludes Mussolini himself. And if you look at historical fascistic regimes, like in Nazi Germany, you can see that the collectivism was limited to the ordinary people, which are of course above the Jews and other. Also disabled people are less worthy then healthy people. This implies a strong hierarchy of value for each individual. You can see the same tendency in the US, where black people are considered and treated as if they where of lower quality, then there are Hispanics, and the crown are white people. And inside these white people there are Liberals (which nowadays has the same undertone as Communist under McCarthy) and the right minded Republicans.

So instead of citing Mussolini, you should look at how it actually worked because claims and actions are not always the same.

Also I want to remind you that I referred to fascist and fundamentalist tendencies. There are also traits present of feudalistic systems. As the US has a disconnected upper class where Trump belongs to.

Re:US on their way back

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither black people nor hispanics are considered as lower quality humans in the US. The people who are treated as lower quality humans are people are antisocial and detract from the functioning of American society. All Americans are very happy for blacks and hispanics who respect American law and contribute to society by not being a lazy welfare leech.

Re:US on their way back

[Anonymous Coward]

THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM-BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)

Accepting mussolini's propaganda as an accurate description of fascism is like taking The Democratic Republic of North Korea's word that they are a democracy.

Instead, lets take the word of more neutral sources:

Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.
Encyclopedia Britannica

An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
Oxford English Dictionary

> Now of all the players in American politics today, which group does this best describe?

These players:
The people who absolutely lose their shit at the thought of black people kneeling that they walk out of a football game.
The television network that fired a reporter who would not toe the line on climate change reporting
Colorado Republican lawmakers want to punish striking teachers with jail time.
Harper’s Editor Insists He Was Fired Over Katie Roiphe Essay - The New York Times
Professor celebrating Barbara Bush’s death deserves to be fired | Fox News
Joyce Peterson on Twitter: "Happening in Nashville right now: lawmakers trying to penalize the @CityOfMemphis for removing confederate statues by slashing a quarter million dollars in funding. https://t.co/ZAg0ntZl30"
Law Enforcement Has Quietly Backed Anti-Protest Bills in at Least 8 States Since Trump’s Election
Memphis-Based Journalist Taken Into ICE Custody After Arrest While Covering Protest (Updated) - Rewire.News
Sinclair producer in Nebraska resigns to protest 'obvious bias'
‘Black-ish’ Political Episode on Kneeling Canceled Over ‘Creative Differences’ – Variety
Republican governor forced to stop blocking Facebook users who criticize him | Ars Technica
AprilDRyan on Twitter: "It is back again. Not called on today for a question. It has been how long? Oh, my last question was about @StormyDaniels! And, I was just told I am on a list. Whatever! I have been doing this for 21 years. I am not new to the rode
Trump attends event about campus political correctness crisis, accidental

Re:US on their way back

[Anonymous Coward]

The group trying to censor and shut down everything they disagree with.

hint: not trump.

Re: US on their way back

[DNS-and-BIND]

Are you 19 years old or something? We literally have preferences for blacks and Hispanics. I think it might be time for you to leave America, it's stressing you out and you're hallucinating fascists. If you're a leftist, you'll want to go to a country that implements your policies like Bolivia, Venezuela, or Cuba. Good luck and I hope you learn a lot about the world.

Re: US on their way back

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice copypasta.

Re:US on their way back

[Anonymous Coward]

And Trump wants to stop the increasing totalitarian state. Removing regulations. Repealing laws that control more of what you do. Increasing transparency. Reducing the size of the federal government. Not reducing individual rights

It is the left that wants the state to control more of what you do for your own good. It censor speech. It wants to take your guns away. It wants more of your money to do what it wants. It imposes rules that restrict the individual to promote the safety and supposed inclusiveness of certain groups while taking more and limiting other groups. All through state control.

Re: US on their way back

[prefec2]

These measures are there, as black people have a disadvantage in society. As an adult you should know the rational behind it. For example black people are more likely to be shot by police or arrested for minor issues. You know that, yet you post such rubbish.

Re: US on their way back

[Anonymous Coward]

We literally have preferences for blacks and Hispanics.

Yeah, that's says it all, doesn't it? The fact that you need laws to protect the black man from the white man shows how racist your society is. It's just a perfectly normal result of lopsided demographics. So, a person like you doesn't know they are doing racist things automatically. Until the roles can be reversed, you are not expected to understand. But a little empathy goes a long way.

Re:US on their way back

[Anonymous Coward]

You think it doesn't matter if people talk?
Have you seen what's happened in the Ukraine, or Armenia, or China, or Venezuela?

When "people talking" brings down governments, or requires the military to shoot the "talkers" to keep the government in power, then people talking matters.

Re:US on their way back

[Opportunist]

You see what's going on here? We have whole boards where any meaningful conversation ceased long ago because Trump here and Hillary there. Did it do anything? Please.

The reason why things happen in those other places is mostly because people still give a shit. We've gone long beyond that.

Re: US on their way back

[Anonymous Coward]

You are welcome to copy it. But its an original list of bookmarks that I've personally collected just by reading the news over the last year or so.

Re:US on their way back

[Anonymous Coward]

Did it do anything? Please.

the women's march started with online talk.
its directly led to the largest number of women running for office ever, by a giant margin

Re:US on their way back

[Anonymous Coward]

The group trying to censor and shut down everything they disagree with.

Progressives want to censor bigots.
Reactionaries want to censor everyone but bigots and plutocrats.

hint: not trump

Yeah, the who guy who wants to change libel laws, is prosecuting whistleblowers at a faster rate than obama, threatens amazon because he doesn't like wapo's coverage of him and encouraged his supporters to beat up people protesting him. That guy doesn't want to censor or shut down anybody!!!

Re: US on their way back

[DNS-and-BIND]

So, when will you be leaving? Oh, what's that, horrid old America is preferable to a country that implements your left-wing ideas? Oh, my my, what a conundrum.

Re: US on their way back

[Anonymous Coward]

So, when will you be leaving?

Fuck off with your cowardly anti-patriotism. You are the one who needs to run off to some brutalist authoritarian country more in line with your anti-american ideals.

My country, right or wrong.
If right, to be kept right.
If wrong, to be set right.

Re:US on their way back

[Anonymous Coward]

Progressives want to censor bigots.

And the problem with this?

"Anyone who disagrees with our Progressive worldview is a bigot!"

Re: I’m with the Evil Death Industries on th

[Reverend Green]

Absolutely! Partisan humbug and rancor aside, transparency is a good thing. If it's not transparent and reproducible, it's NOT science.

Where is the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good science requires open data (which of course can be anonymized personal data). Else the results can not be reproduced.
This change is not only needed for EPA but also for other science use.

Over the years science relies more and more on statistical analysis of massive amounts of raw data, that are currently not uniformly archived (if archived at all) and are some times even kept confidential. This also prevents reuse already collected data.

Re: Do you want to end up watering crops with Braw

[prefec2]

Are we not already watering oyr plants with it? In other areas this is already the case. People are drinking raw water, we produce CO2 as if there is no tomorrow, we use plastics as if this is not an issue, people start believing in a flat earth.

the Enterprise Protection Agency ?

[bill.pev]

What's worse for human beings.. No Regulation -OR- Biased crappy enforcement of industry-friendly regulations that institutionalize the ability to rape the environment without regards to its effect on people? What Protection does the EPA actually provide? None to people.

Re:the Enterprise Protection Agency ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same exact laws and regulations as under Obama actually. And no state agencies have changed their stance on environmental protection. I work in the electric industry and let me tell you they regulate us all right just as they did before Trump.

Sorry but nothing to see here, except you didn't get what you wanted on CO2 regulations - which were tied up in court anyway at the federal level. They are enforced in some states however.

So please repost apologizing for your rant against industries that are following the same laws as before.

Re:the Enterprise Protection Agency ?

[Green Mountain Bot]

The EPA enforces the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Both have been enormous successes, and have been a boon to communities and individuals throughout the nation. You might not think the huge reductions of smog in major cities, or rivers that can now be home to fish that feed wildlife, or toxic sites that have been cleaned up and repurposed don't benefit people. I strongly disagree, and I think you'll find most people do as well.

Re:I’m with the Evil Death Industries on thi

[mvdwege]

What, exactly, is stopping these corps to cough up the dough themselves for this data and do their replication? Oh yes. Fucking greed.

Re:Do you want to end up watering crops with Brawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that isn't what this about.. at all. There's nothing preventing those patients being identified as John Doe nor by some random ID. It's literally the EPA will be required to base their decisions on Science and Slashdot is ripping them apart because Trump??

No one has even brought up national security or other sensitive information that may still need to be redacted. Anything involving nuclear radiation or biological weapons for example.

Getting the feeling this entire "story" was crated by bots.

Re:Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not citing papers whose results cannot be reproduced, but this is nothing new: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778. The term even has its own Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Bad science is bad, and if you craft a regulation it should ideally be done on good grounds. I might stretch that something that we strongly suspect is really bad should be temporarily topped until we can investigate if it is safe to continue.

But I am not so sure that the basis for these new EPA rules are to craft *better* regulations, with the current climate in politics it is to craft *fewer* regulations.

Re:Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

This only demands that public funded science has to give away private information, this doesn't stop private science CLAIMING proof from private data yet not proving this to the same level. Therefore only the science done by private industry AND VOLUNTARILY RELEASED BY THEM will be allowed. And if the politicians don't like that company's science, they can just demand they out all their patients and break the law by doing so.

Re:Do you want to end up watering crops with Brawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it IS what it is all about. definitively so. No, identifying it as "John Doe" does not work since if the EPA doesn't like the political implications of the study, they'll ask how they can verify that "John Doe" did in fact have this problem, given they can't verify the account even took place!

You, sir, are a fucking moron. Totally.

Do you think that they will even ask that?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. And if the Dems got in with a progressive candidate who DID ask, the republicans and DINOs would just shout it down as unamerican theft of private property and arbitrary lawbreaking.

No, the demand for transparency will ONLY be made to the science whose conclusions are not POLITICALLY correct for the administration. And dems won't use it to screw over private business because all of the media is owned by private business and will kill their chances of surviving even one term before they rile the populace up into insurrection.

Another dolt

[BadTuna]

So the self-proclaim 'leading advocate against the EPA' who somehow managed to become its' administrator is already dumbing it down. Soooo much winning.

Re:Another dolt

[kenh]

You prefer environmental regulations based on secret data?

I have a report right here that says smoking two packs of cigarettes a day has absolutely no negative health effects. What was that, you want to see the data, sorry, HIPPA regulations prevent me from releasing it - trust me.

or

I've got a report right here that details the positive health effects increased greenhouse gases have on children under 3 years old. What was that, you want to see the data, sorry, the data is proprietary so I can't release it - trust me.

Re:Another dolt

[Anonymous Coward]

How about “we disclosed our report to the EPA, but they are under an NDA because we had to disclose some trade secrets and/or the report required some confidential data about specific people and/or we couldn’t completely anonymize the data because #reasons.”

In those scenarios, you’d prefer for the EPA to say “sorry, we don’t do NDAs, keep your ‘lead is bad, m’kay’ research to yourself!”?

There are a lot of parallels here to arguments for/against full disclosure of software vulnerabilities. “This bug doesn’t exist unless you publish.” “Okay, we’ll publish, then.” “Not so fast: we’ll sue you for libel if you publish.” “But you said the bug doesn’t exist until we publish it, how can we make the bug exist and force you to fix it without publishing and being threatened with libel.” “Check-mate.”

Hockey sticks

[tomhath]

This is about someone publishing a graph that looks like a hockey stick and proclaiming global warming is real, but refusing to publish the original data to support that claim.

Re:Hockey sticks

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about someone publishing a graph that looks like a hockey stick and proclaiming global warming is real, but refusing to publish the original data to support that claim.

Can you publish the original data to prove that they refused that? Because I call bullshit on that one.

In other words...

[kenh]

This change will require environmental regulation decisions to be based on publicly-available data, rather than secret datasets - and the problem is what, exactly? Critics of this rule change apparently are forcing themselves to pretend medical data can't be annonimized and made public...

What is fascinating is that the critics are ignoring how this regulation would protect their interests of a business-favoring administration tried to ram thru a regulation rolling back a clean water regulation ("I have secret medical data that shows humans have an incredible tolerance for less in their drinking water, we we are rolling back safe water regulations").

Re:In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Secret datasets of industry information. So, if an industry is doing something bad, they claim that it is confidential information. Boom, can't regulate, have to allow all sorts of terrible things to be dumped.

If you think it's limited to "medical" PLEASE READ THE FUCKING SUMMARY

Re:In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are conflating secret and confidential. Just because something can't be dropped into pastebin doesn't mean its secret, it means there are rules for how it can be accessed. Those rules are probably the only way the data could be collected in the first place (e.g. medical privacy laws).

Re:In other words...

[Vitriol Angst]

I'm going to go with "bullshit reason protecting us from stuff that never happens so that it's harder for the EPA to regulate" for $800.

It's been a few months for Trump cronies so they have to work hard to rush out good ways to make the EPA toothless.

Before saying it is good or bad : anonymous ?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's ways of anonymizing data without rendering it unsuitable for scientific purposes.

secret agents vs Man

[harvey the nerd]

So you prefer secret trials with no peer review to enslave millions or billions of people ?

Republicans drowning Nixon's baby

[Anonymous Coward]

So brave. BIGLY USAmericans dont need no clean air.

Re: I’m with the Evil Death Industries on th

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Transparency has nothing to do with science. Reproducibility is important, but nothing about science requires confidential study data to be released unsanitized to Big Business. They're only crying for transparency because they know it's impossible, so they can invalidate any scientific study that seeks to put science before profits.

fn

[harvey the nerd]

more likely you're a f'g Maoist or Stalinist or other authoritarian ecoterrorist

Re:fn

[Anonymous Coward]

You are also a fucking moron who doesn't even understand those concepts. But thanks for playing.

Re:fn

[Anonymous Coward]

What? You left out cultural marxist. All your enemies are cultural marxists, dontcha know?!!! You can never go wrong with accusing someone who triggers you of being a cultural marxist!!!

And the problem is...

[kenh]

Under the new proposals, the EPA will no longer be able to rely on scientific research that is underpinned by confidential medical and industry data.

So the EPA proposes that the science used to determine public policy and environmental regulations be held to the same rigorous standard as your average sixth-grade science fair submission, and critics attack the proposal because... decisions based on secret data is the only way to protect the environment?

Re:And the problem is...

[JoshuaZ]

Confidential medical data is a standard thing. Under this rule, all sorts of data that would be normally confidential (especially identifying information of patients or subjects in studies) would need to be public for it to be used. This cannot for a whole host of reasons occur.

Re:And the problem is...

[kenh]

You seem to think there is some HIPPA requirement that prevents publishing medical data for research purposes - take a look here:

The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes the conditions under which protected health information may be used or disclosed by covered entities for research purposes. Research is defined in the Privacy Rule as, “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” See 45 CFR 164.501. A covered entity may always use or disclose for research purposes health information which has been de-identified (in accordance with 45 CFR 164.502(d), and 164.514(a)-(c) of the Rule)

De-identifying health information is as simple as removing patient name, birth date, and any other non-medically relevant identifier before publishing the data.

Re:And the problem is...

[rhazz]

You seem to think that making the de-identified information public is enough to satisfy the new rules. Given all the scientists decrying this change, do you think they didn't consider this?

Re:And the problem is...

[kenh]

No. They think it's a tool to limit their ability to push through changes they want, rather than a common-sense approach to base regulation on provable standards based on publicly-available information.

They see the words Trump administration, science, and limit and argue it's bad because, well, because the Trump administration said it.

Why should scientists, whose positions are based on facts, evidence and logic demand that their findings be accepted and acted on without challenge or evidence?

Re:I’m with the Evil Death Industries on thi

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad to help. Give me your address and I'll be glad to send a stool sample too.

Any recourse for regulations based on bad science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science

Bad science is the foundation for radiation regulations, the source of hysteria surrounding nuclear, and the cause of the outrageously increasing costs:

Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone

This needs to be addressed, because the ordained "green" solutions aren't enough, and while we keep hearing about how cheap they are, they are mostly just making electricity more expensive.

Re:Ummm... did the Trump administration just do go

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this effectively means anything using health records is inadmissible because the data legally has to be kept private. Additionally all studies based on one time events like all studies of real world exposure to spills is inadmissible because it's not replicable. In other words basically every study on the impact on human beings is no longer admissible.

Tit for Tat

[oh_my_080980980]

As long as Corporations have full transparency, I'm game. No hiding behind, trade secrets.

Understanding HIPPA regulations

[kenh]

The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes the conditions under which protected health information may be used or disclosed by covered entities for research purposes. Research is defined in the Privacy Rule as, “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” See 45 CFR 164.501. A covered entity may always use or disclose for research purposes health information which has been de-identified (in accordance with 45 CFR 164.502(d), and 164.514(a)-(c) of the Rule)

Source: Health Information Privacy

Ignorance of the HIPPA regulations is fueling much of the backlash this proposed federal regulation change is attracting.

Once the data is "de-identified" it can be published, and removing identifying elements is trivial.

Re: Understanding HIPPA regulations

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, what is fueling this discussion is the root issue of character. Scott Pruitt has a deplorable one. He was chosen by an even more deplorable boss. And the industry itself is deplorable as well, with a history of burying science, lying about facts, and otherwise concealing the truth for their own agenda.

That's a consequence of behavior, and all the information is public.

Here's my advice if, by chance, you have some shred of integrity: Review the company you keep, and ask yourself if you want to be associated with those whose actions are so thoroughly compromised.

Re:Understanding HIPPA regulations

[HeckRuler]

and removing identifying elements is trivial.

Whoa there. That little tidbit of "de-identifying" people isn't as easy as you think.

Just stripping their name and soc is good. But how many black ethnic Han Chinese are living in Montana? If there's just the one, it's pretty trivial to use that sort of "de-identified" information to identify individuals. If there's information about someone, there's a chance it could be used to identify them. Not even easy things like a picture of their face, or rare things like uncommon ancestry. If you get enough mundane details about someone you can carve the list of suspects down to a single person. And what if these sort of details are pertinent to the study? Like it's an interplay between (That skin-pigment chemical) and alcohol allergy? (Or whatever common heritable trait).

So... you know... this part can be hard.

But I have to agree with that coward. This reeks of bullshit excuse business and the current administrative goons are using to hamstring and shut down the EPA from protecting citizens and costing business money. If it's ignorance, it's WILLFUL ignorance, but it's more likely to be a convenient lie. You can bet your ass the lawyer lobbyists pushing for it know full well the HIPPA law they're trying to stand on.

Then Advertising and Marketing Should Follow Suit

[Anonymous Coward]

If this regulation is adopted, then any claim made in an advertisement or marketing material should also be required to have data that supports the claim.

Pharma ad makes a claim: ok, then give us all the data from the trials.

http://www.watchonlinemovies.video/

[Anonymous Coward]

good work keep it up..

http://www.watchonlinemovies.video/

Re:I’m with the Evil Death Industries on thi

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the EPA's recent actions are probably based on information available in Trump's tax returns. Those should be made publicly available.

Post of the week

[Anonymous Coward]

Rare combination. Funny and Insightful, +6.

Don't Get Played

[Anonymous Coward]

Science has a reproducibility problem and someone raises that concern is now radical. Wow.

Science does have a reproducibility problem. But Pruitt does not care about that, its just a flimsy pretext for him to reduce any fact-based opposition to his plutocratic agenda.

If you care about reproducibility then you should oppose his attempt to co-opt your concerns for his own purposes because in the long run his abuse of your concerns will serve to discredit them by associating them with corporate corruption.

Re:Don't Get Played

[Anonymous Coward]

If the basis of your complaint about this rule change is "Pruitt is a poopy face!" Then you don't have any legitimate criticisms and I think you're an idiot and will disregard what you have to say.

Science doesn't care about the persons character making a claim. As demonstrated by the Nazi's banning "jewish science" or the Soviets with promoting their Lysenkoism.

You do science a disservice if all you can muster is about Pruitt.

Re:Don't Get Played

[Anonymous Coward]

If the basis of your complaint about this rule change is "Pruitt is a poopy face!"

Its not. Pay attention. Pruitt isn't trying to increase transparency, he's using it as a pretext to reduce the application of science in government policy making. That's why he's demanding the medical data be de-anonymized in order to use it for policy purposes. He knows that would be illegal and thus will get all the science based on that medical data excluded.

Re:Don't Get Played

[Anonymous Coward]

By making the EPA follow the same rules every other government policy maker has to follow?

You sir are retarded.

Re:Don't Get Played

[Anonymous Coward]

By making the EPA follow the same rules every other government policy maker has to follow?

That's false. He's making unique rules for the EPA.

But its good you revealed yourself as not actually caring about the facts. So we can safely assume, that like Pruitt you don't actually care about good science either.

Re:Don't Get Played

[Anonymous Coward]

Even HPPA has rules for handling private information for research purposes. You are lying.

Re:Don't Get Played

[paradigmsareconstruc]

When one considers that science owes its success to this concept of reproducibility, it is alarming that anybody would consider reproducibility to be some sort of a partisan issue.

Science is Not What You Think: How It Has Changed, Why We Can't Trust It, How It Can Be Fixed
Henry H. Bauer

Why Has Science Been Successful?

"What explains the enormous successes of science?

... All this knowledge and understanding came from studying phenomena that are regular, where observations can be repeated, and where the basic bits of matter involved are essentially identical and with inherent properties that do not change over time. Astronomy was able to gain understanding that could be expressed mathematically, quantitatively, because heavenly movements repeat themselves with great regularity. Physics and chemistry yielded general laws because atoms and molecules of a particular species (elements or compounds) are all identical within their given species: all atoms of carbon react in the same way, all molecules of water are the same, all electrons are identical, as are all protons and neutrons and other fundamental particles. Such regular behavior, together with being able to group objects into categories within which all the individual objects are identical, is what makes it possible to discover general laws of nature and universal constants. Laws and constants can only exist when phenomena are regular and occur invariably in the same manner ...

Popular views about science as a whole were derived largely from the stunning successes of the natural sciences, without explicit recognition that those successes flowed from the study of relatively simple systems of inanimate matter composed of collections of individual bits."

This is truthfully an insanely simple issue: if climate change advocates are suggesting that we need to make fundamental changes to our system of government and economy to save the planet, then the data must be made publicly available.

Re:Don't Get Played

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh puhlease. You cited an AIDS-denying, Loch-Ness Monster believing conspiracy theorist who hasn't done actual science since the 1960s.
You aren't a serious person.

Re:Don't Get Played

[Anonymous Coward]

Even HPPA has rules for handling private information for research purposes. You are lying.

And Pruitt's rules says that if you follow those HIPPA rules it will not be sufficiently 'transparent.' That's what makes his rules for the EPA unique.

Re:Don't Get Played

[Anonymous Coward]

it says you cannot impose regulation underpinned by confidential information.

WTF is wrong with you.

Re:Don't Get Played

[HornWumpus]

That's your claim. Not supported by _anything_.

The rules say nothing about anonymized data, only a moron or a troll would jump on that conclusion. Because they already have a predicided conclusion.

Re:Don't Get Played

[Anonymous Coward]

That's your claim. Not supported by _anything_.

You are right, the 1000 scientists who signed the letter upthread do not know what they are talking about. The Union of Concerned Scienists don't know jackshit either. Its completely unsupported.

Re:Don't Get Played

[paradigmsareconstruc]

The pattern is pretty clear: Actual attempts to reproduce research tend to produce shockingly low reproducibility rates. For those who have been paying attention to the situation, this is not actually news. It seems to only be news for those who refuse to track these types of problems.

Nature article from May 2016

More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research ...

Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology and cancer biology, found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence.

Re:Don't Get Played

[Anonymous Coward]

the 1000 scientists who signed the letter upthread do not know what they are talking about

Yes, appeal to authority because you have no argument.

Scientists can be wrong. Scientists have bias, political leanings, and passions around the politics surrounding science. That is why we use the scientific method and we do not accept "trust me, I'm a scientist" as anything valid on any scientific research. Science is not built on trust.

Re:Don't Get Played

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, appeal to authority because you have no argument.

You don't understand that fallacy. Its only a fallacy when the authority is unrelated to the topic. This is an appeal to expertise -- scientists commenting on the practice of science are a legitimate authority.

Re:Don't Get Played

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have ranged off into some sort of anti-science agenda, looks like its a personal issue for you. Are you hyper religious?

Yes, science is imperfect, that's pretty much by definition - its an iterative search for certain kinds of truth.
None of that is relevant to what Pruitt is doing, he's trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater - requiring standards that don't encourage reproducibility but instead throw out science all together.

Re:Don't Get Played

[HornWumpus]

Did you read the damn thing? They don't claim it bans anonymization of data. They just claim that transparency isn't good or necessary...trust them. We're supposed to just forget things like 'the Hockey stick' that turned out to be simple minded fabrications.

Re:Don't Get Played

[HornWumpus]

Sorry no, each of those scientists needs their publication history reviewed.

For example: I'll bet their are sociologists in the group, those typically only know how to practice science WRONG.

Re:Don't Get Played

[paradigmsareconstruc]

The threat from within
February 21, 2017

Former Provost John Etchemendy, in a recent speech before the Stanford Board of Trustees, outlined challenges higher education is facing in the coming years. Following is an excerpt from that talk.

"Over the years, I have watched a growing intolerance at universities in this country – not intolerance along racial or ethnic or gender lines – there, we have made laudable progress. Rather, a kind of intellectual intolerance, a political one-sidedness, that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for. It manifests itself in many ways: in the intellectual monocultures that have taken over certain disciplines; in the demands to disinvite speakers and outlaw groups whose views we find offensive; in constant calls for the university itself to take political stands. We decry certain news outlets as echo chambers, while we fail to notice the echo chamber we've built around ourselves.

This results in a kind of intellectual blindness that will, in the long run, be more damaging to universities than cuts in federal funding or ill-conceived constraints on immigration. It will be more damaging because we won't even see it: We will write off those with opposing views as evil or ignorant or stupid, rather than as interlocutors worthy of consideration. We succumb to the all-purpose ad hominem because it is easier and more comforting than rational argument. But when we do, we abandon what is great about this institution we serve. It will not be easy to resist this current. As an institution, we are continually pressed by faculty and students to take political stands, and any failure to do so is perceived as a lack of courage. But at universities today, the easiest thing to do is to succumb to that pressure. What requires real courage is to resist it. Yet when those making the demands can only imagine ignorance and stupidity on the other side, any resistance will be similarly impugned.

The university is not a megaphone to amplify this or that political view, and when it does it violates a core mission. Universities must remain open forums for contentious debate, and they cannot do so while officially espousing one side of that debate. But we must do more. We need to encourage real diversity of thought in the professoriate, and that will be even harder to achieve. It is hard for anyone to acknowledge high-quality work when that work is at odds, perhaps opposed, to one's own deeply held beliefs. But we all need worthy opponents to challenge us in our search for truth. It is absolutely essential to the quality of our enterprise.

I fear that the next few years will be difficult to navigate. We need to resist the external threats to our mission, but in this, we have many friends outside the university willing and able to help. But to stem or dial back our academic parochialism, we are pretty much on our own. The first step is to remind our students and colleagues that those who hold views contrary to one’s own are rarely evil or stupid, and may know or understand things that we do not. It is only when we start with this assumption that rational discourse can begin, and that the winds of freedom can blow."

Re:Don't Get Played

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry no, each of those scientists needs their publication history reviewed.

You go and do it and then report back to us.

: I'll bet

bets are not scientific evidence, go do the actual research before assuming facts not in evidence.

Oh, that's right. You DGAF about science, this is just more culture war drinking of liberal tears for you isn't it.

Re:Don't Get Played

[HornWumpus]

I don't need to validate your cite. 1000 scientists is a tiny %, even if they were all capable and practicing rigorous sciences

Anybody who says closed datasets are OK, is shit for a scientist. Look into it, start your search with 'scientific method', pay particular attention to 'reproducing experimental results'.

The correct procedure is 'publish with complete raw, intermediate and final data on a supplied link'. If they're not doing that in the first place, they are not doing science. I can accept that they will hold the raw data back until they have published all their papers on it, but after that, no excuses.

Re:Don't Get Played

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't need to validate your cite.

Nope. You only need to validate your criticism of my cite. You've failed to do it and you won't because you thought you could get away with a rhetorical trick and you got called on it. Enjoy your liberal tears while you can, cause your gonna be drowning in them soon enough.. You think SJWs are vicious now? Just wait until we STRING YOU UP for trying to destroy the country.

Re:Don't Get Played

[AutodidactLabrat]

... The best-known analyses, from psychology and cancer biology, found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively.

Surprise. Your "Source" conflates paid drug trials with elemental weather observation and modeling to cast aspersions on climate science. Well, I see that Alex Jones got his money's worth out of the two of you.
Tovaritch, tell me why you think a bug filled, low crop, flooded cities world is good?

Re:Don't Get Played

[paradigmsareconstruc]

The reproducibility crisis is not confined to any particular domain of science, and it should be obvious that reproducibility is a serious concern when modeling climate. There have in fact been critiques that climate models are sometimes parameterized with values which are selected to produce alarming results, so demanding that the results be reproducible could actually act as a check for such fraud. Your eagerness to "defend" climate science leaves the door wide open for bad actors to flood this domain, and the publish-or-perish problem will predictably drive some percentage of these scientists to do just that. Be very careful what you ask for.

Re:Don't Get Played

[AutodidactLabrat]

And yet, your "Source" said nothing at all about any of the hard sciences.
"Been critiques" by the Heartland institute, or did you miss the complete lack of peer reviewed academic journal articles declaring climate science a fraud?
Yes, fraud, you gave yurself away.

Seriously???

[fish_in_the_c]

"The EPA has for decades relied on scientific research that is rooted in confidential medical and industry data "

Am I reading this incorrectly? To me this means the EPA is relying on data that is not publicly available for peer review. How can you even call it science if you data-sets are not available for peer review?

Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when would it be considered science if the 'science' is reliant on "confidential medical and industry data".

Like a lot of "science" today, can we honestly call it science if the data is not available, the experiment/study can't be replicated, and the results can neither be replicated or verified.

To paraphrase Jerry Maguire, Show Me the Data!

Re:Do you want to end up watering crops with Brawn

[Anonymous Coward]

they'll ask how they can verify that "John Doe" did in fact have this problem

No, they won't. The data are what conditions John Doe had, and how that data was collected and validated. His real name is irrelevant. You are the moron.

EPA currently ruled by CFSG appointee...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Cheetoh-Faced Shit Gibbon to the uninitiated. Our current PotUS is a complete imbecile under Russian mind-control through botched hair implants and that terrible hair-piece.

Re:EPA currently ruled by CFSG appointee...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a sad little AC. And your life must be really unpleasant. To carry around that much hate and distrust, to always be so angry. How tragic.

Been there, seen that

[thunderclees]

Since when were legislators worried about writing bills behind closed doors?. An example that comes to mind is the NYS SAFE act which was dictated in secret and passed at 2am though to be fair that may say more about corruption in Albany then the law.

Apparently he is the only one that cares

[SuperKendall]

Science does have a reproducibility problem. But Pruitt does not care about that,

Well apparently he does, because HE'S the one asking for it in science the EPA uses.

His opponents (such as yourself) are demanding the EPA use "secret science" that is neither proved reproducible nor had data anyone else can use to reproduce results.

Sorry, but in this one Scott is on the side of real science and you are on the side of the crystal-healers and anti-vaxxers.

If you care about reproducibility then you should oppose... reproducibility? That is what you are saying. Madness, which is I guess why you posted AC.

Re:Apparently he is the only one that cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Well apparently he does, because HE'S the one asking for it in science the EPA uses.

Ah, its super ken doll raring to go with his pudenda-smooth lies and misdirection! Good to see you buddy!

His opponents (such as yourself) are demanding the EPA use "secret science"

Tell you what, lets hold your analysis to the same level of transparency as Pruitt demands of "science" - post your name and address here so we can make sure you aren't one of pruitt's secret lobbyists buddies that gave him $100K via a shell company. After all, if anonymous medical patients aren't good enough for EPA policy, anonymous policy advocates shouldn't be good enough either, right?

Re: Apparently he is the only one that cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but in this one Scott is on the side of real science and you are on the side of the crystal-healers and anti-vaxxers.

Nope. Pruett is not on the side of real science, but actually adopted the position of the crystal healers and anti- vaxxers because it turns out the science to disprove those quacks didn't meet his criteria.

That's even ignoring the conversations that went on in the cone of silence. You know the ones he didn't want us to hear because he is hypocritical.

Re:Apparently he is the only one that cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Bias is showing here. The EPA can and often does reproduce results using their own researchers. Some tests are fairly complicated though. When you measure the radiation and how it affects people at a nuclear power plant you can't go and build your own plant and then expose test subjects to the radiation. So you use data from nuclear plant operators to arrive at your conclusions. Some operators are going to be better than others and if you want them all to give you the data you're going to need to keep individual details secret. So by requiring transparency you can now no longer regulate how much radiation a power plant can produce so we better hope the current rules are correct because we can't change them.

Same goes with the Ohio river valley in the 80s. They were pumping so much pollution those of us in Vermont and upstate New York were getting acid rain killing our forests. We needed to know what they were pumping and processing to determine how we can limit exposure in the atmosphere. That was all industrial secrets that they would not be able to use anymore.

The issue is stupid on its face. If you don't like an EPA regulation fight it in court and prove them wrong. All you need to do is show one test case that disproves their reasoning for a rule and you're good to go. The problem is people like Scott Pruitt want to frack more despite the thousands of earthquakes in Oklahoma every year now. Everywhere they have started fracking there has been a dramatic increase in earthquake activity. That is why the practice is banned in Europe already. Pruitt and is ilk don't want to disclose what they are pumping into the ground so for all we know it is radioactive sludge or highly acidic or full of lead all contaminating people's water.

That is super scary

[SuperKendall]

The main reason that scientists and researchers are complaining about the rule change is because it shoulders them with the cost of first deanonymizing medical data in order to be able to present it for consideration in EPA rulemaking.

So what you are saying is that before people were sharing de-anonymoized medical data with federal agencies? HOLY SHIT. Why are we not screaming to the skies about that, since government traditionally has the worst security, and no overbite as to what employees are doing with that data.

Re:That is super scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that you're completely wrong. The largest data breaches have been of private and publicly traded companies. Not the government. Government breaches have been rather small in scale in comparison.

Re:Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been many reports that scientific papers are not reproducible.

Citation? Or is this the Trumpian 'some people say' (namely me, DJT, and all my yes men).

Re:Do you want to end up watering crops with Brawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they will. They have not defined terms to what you claim they will USE THEM as, you're just saying what OUGHT to work and ignoring why they're doing this: so they can ignore inconvenient science, dumbass.

Re:Then Advertising and Marketing Should Follow Su

[Anonymous Coward]

If this regulation is adopted, then any claim made in an advertisement or marketing material should also be required to have data that supports the claim.

Pharma ad makes a claim: ok, then give us all the data from the trials.

They do provide the data, but in these cases, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data standards apply. This story is about EPA regulations to keep, for example, Progressives like Michael Mann from proclaiming Hockey Stick! Trust Me.

Re:Do you want to end up watering crops with Brawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to Russia, FUD shill.

Dominionist agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what this is: science, logic, reason, real facts, real truth? Throw those away. Superstition, mysticism, 'circular logic', 'faith', thousands-years-old works of fiction, Zombie Jesus? That's what they want the future to look like: drag us back 1000+ years, sociologically, technologically, and educationally, destroy the Earth as fast as possible, bring about the Apocalypse as soon as you can, so Zombie Jesus will come take them all to Heaven. In the meantime, the ultra-right-wing conservatives (who are also Dominionists) can live high on the hog, sucking as much profit as they can out of humanity (because they're all going to die in the Apocalypse anyway so who cares, right?). They have to be stopped. Vote Democrat in all elections, help restore some balance to our government, support STEM, and turn away from religious nonsense.

Not About Transparency

[Anonymous Coward]

We know just who and what Scott Pruitt is. He's someone who doesn't believe in the EPA, who has been put in charge of the EPA.

Even if this resulted in greater transparency, this isn't about transparency. Arguing about transparency on this policy change is like arguing about the shade of paint on the walls while the house is on fire; it doesn't matter at all, and it distracts from a much bigger and more pressing issue!

Pruitt is signaling to his boss, his business buddies, and his supporters that he is a 'Friend of Business'. Is a regulation getting in your way? No problem! We have Regulation-Be-Gone, the instant spray cure for inconvenient barriers to business!

What is transparent here is Pruitt's motives and end game. He'd like to end the EPA. If he can't do that he will cripple it.

Re:Ummm... did the Trump administration just do go

[Green Mountain Bot]

Now, I hate Pruitt and everyone else involved in this shitshow, but ... it looks like they actually did something positive for a change.

That's exactly their intent - to LOOK like they did something positive, when in fact it is a major setback for science-based policy.

Re:I’m with the Evil Death Industries on thi

[Mab_Mass]

Glad to help. Give me your address and I'll be glad to send a stool sample too.

Please mail the stool samples to: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500.

Be sure to include a return address!

Re: I’m with the Evil Death Industries on th

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's not transparent and reproducible, it's NOT science.

Exactly. Everything we've learned about climate is not science, since we can't readily reproduce specific climates at our experimental whims. Everything we've learned from oil spills is not science, since by law we can't dump an ocean tanker full of oil into the sea. Everything...

easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Ban emissions of everything without sufficient public data. Makes sense and Crystal clear. No more wondering if they are responsible for a given toxic spill. Or what health effects something actually has. No more worry about what is exactly in the fracking fluid.

Re:I’m with the Evil Death Industries on thi

[Shotgun]

You know that's illegal to send by the US Postal Service don't you? You have to use UPS or Fedex.

Just don't want you to get in trouble, or for the AC to miss out on the specimen.

That's a crock

[raymorris]

> First, many public health studies cannot be replicated, as doing so would require intentionally and
unethically exposing people and the environment to harmful contaminants

Bull.
Unless the original study that the EPA is using "intentionally and unethically exposed people and the environment to harmful contaminants", repeating the study won't do so. Do the authors claim that the EPA is funding and using studies that intentionally harm people?

What actually happens is someone studies the results of an oil spill or drug use or whatever, first gathering data. Then they massage the data in various ways, compensating for this and that. Then reach conclusions. (Or, reach conclusions and then message the data to match). The study, what needs to be reproducible, is the methodology of gathering and adjusting the data. What we have now is "we've concluded that an oil spill and smoking pot kill a bunch of people. We're not telling you how we came to that conclusion". Making the data and methodology available would mean publishing "we interviewed 100 heavy pot smokers who live within 10 miles of the beach and asked them if they think they are going to die. 70% of pot smokers within 10 miles of the beach said they will die". Other scientists could then point to problems with that methodology, could do their own analysis of the data, or repeat the study, taking their own survey.

Re:That's a crock

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the original study that the EPA is using "intentionally and unethically exposed people and the environment to harmful contaminants", repeating the study won't do so.

I'm so tired of you pseudo-intellectuals who have only the most superficial, binary understanding of science that just happens to be exactly what you need to deny any scientific conclusions you disagree with.

Going by your idiotic ignorance epidemiology is not science.

The problem

[cwsumner]

The problem is that lack of data is not only unscientific, it makes it a whole lot easier to fake the results. Scientists are a lot more reliable than politicians, but even scientists are not -that- reliable.

Basing law on secret data is how dictatorships work. Environmental concerns are just an excuse used by "control freaks" here, real environmentalists have plenty of other ways to get things done...

Right move for wrong reason

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of transparency is something that people have been clamoring for in biology, psychology, and social "sciences" ever since it was found that a large fraction of studies could not be replicated. Pharma especially likes to hide its studies, with the help of the FDA.

EPA might think that this will help them avoid acknowledging the effects of global warming. Maybe. But, it actually can only be good for science. Secret studies are like secret kangaroo courts.

Re:Do you want to end up watering crops with Brawn

[sexconker]

No, identifying it as "John Doe" does not work since if the EPA doesn't like the political implications of the study, they'll ask how they can verify that "John Doe" did in fact have this problem, given they can't verify the account even took place!

Wrong.

If the EPA were to ask such an asinine thing, the researchers could say "We have the original dataset, and you can audit it if you like. Your auditors need to be HIPAA compliant, though, by signing a document stating they won't spread this information in a way that can identify patients. How's Tuesday at 1 PM?" They don't even need to release the original dataset to the auditors, the auditors can go to them and have controlled, view-only access in a conference room while they check as many records as they want.

Have you never seen an audit in any sort of business capacity?

Sounds bad

[HeckRuler]

Sounds bad, but it's more of a "put up or shut up" sort of affair. If you can't publish, it's not science. ....But what's keeping them from releasing the data in aggregate to protect the privacy of individuals and STILL be published science? And if you assume they're lying, what's to keep an undergrad research assistant from.... simply marking down the results they want to see? The crux of science is NOT trusting the researcher, it's the reproducibility.

secret science

[HermMunster]

The title seems misleading. I read yesterday that it was outlawing secret science. That sort of turn this report on it's head.

EPA != FDA

[Anonymous Coward]

This article has definitely been through a "spin meister".

  Peer review, along with the ability to recreate a test is fundamental to science. The reason for the decision is because of folks like Michael Mann and other climatologists won't allow anyone to review their source data or source code to check their models.

However, this article spends a lot of time conflating private "medical" information with environmental information. We are, after all, talking about the EPA - not the FDA. Private medical records are not much of a factor for the environment, and the places where it is, the aggregated, anonymized medical records can be released.

Self correcting after next mass horror

[Maxo-Texas]

Seriously, the next thalidimide crisis, or the next mass death from lack of these regulations will restore them.

it's inevitable that thousands or tens of thousands will die or be mutilated and then the laws will be put in place because they were there for a reason in the first place.

Re:Ummm... did the Trump administration just do go

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unless the science data can't be made available"

Hiding the evidence is a BAD thing.

What is confidential data?

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/pesticide-registration-manual-chapter-15-submitting-data-and-confidential#cbi
From EPA's website, confidential data includes:
                information that discloses manufacturing or quality control processes (FIFRA 10(d)(1)(A));
                information that discloses methods for testing and measuring the quantity of deliberately added inert ingredients (FIFRA 10(d)(1)(B)); and
                information that discloses the identity or percentage quantity of deliberately added inert ingredients (FIFRA 10(d)(1)(C)).

From University of Nevada's website:
"Confidentiality refers to the researcher's agreement to handle, store, and share research data to ensure that information obtained from and about research participants is not improperly divulged. Individuals may only be willing to share information for research purposes with an understanding that the information will remain protected from disclosure outside of the research setting or to unauthorized persons."
"Requirements for confidentiality protections apply to Protected Personally Identifiable Information (PPII) obtained preliminary to research (e.g., PPII is obtained from private records to assess eligibility or contact prospective participants); during data collection, analysis, and dispensation; and
        after study closure (if PPII is retained)."

You're saying you can't study a natural epidemic?

[raymorris]

> Going by your idiotic ignorance epidemiology is not science.

No, going by what I say, epidemiology is the science that studies epidemics that have happened. Going by THEIR assertion, epidemiology starts by creating an epidemic, in order to study it.

It is the people fighting this who claim you can't do a study without "intentionally and unethically exposing people and the environment to harmful contaminants". I say you can study an epidemic without creating one, and you can document how you did your study.

Re:Do you want to end up watering crops with Brawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, The EPA WILL ask for such data and won't be given it and therefore the study it does will be ignored as "not reproducible". Pretty dumb and gullible, aren't you.

Open Source Research is a GOOD thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Some (no idea how much/many) of the data and algorithms on which our global warming warnings are based are proprietary. "Trust us, Citizen, we know the truth." I suspect that there are a lot of people here capable of crunching the numbers and coming up with their own conclusions. Give it a shot, my hubby did.