Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Because this is how you end up watering your crops with Brawndo.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Is this end-to-unattributed data going to have a fat, juicy exception written for fracking compounds? Asking for my grandkids.
in his administration. No joke, he didn't invite the press...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
Environmental regulations should be strictly based on science, but it should be on published research with publicly available, peer reviewable data.
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.
"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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
"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.
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.
I feel so sig.
Environmental Pollution Agency?
Absolutely! Partisan humbug and rancor aside, transparency is a good thing. If it's not transparent and reproducible, it's NOT science.
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.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
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?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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?
Ken
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.
Ken
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
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.