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]

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?

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.

Scott Pruitt just announced more transparency

[rsilvergun]

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

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: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: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.