Restrictions on the EPA’s ability to consider public health studies when creating regulations – including regulations directly concerning public health.
In 2017, then-EPA administrator Scott Pruitt proposed the deceitfully titled “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science Rule”. Proponents of which claim, with disingenuous ignorance, to simply be seeking ‘transparency’ into the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision-making process. Their demands (that all underlying data of any considered study be made publicly available) sounds reasonable enough.
Except that such a requirement (as its proponents well-know) would effectively block the EPA from consulting vast swathes of medical research, since exposing the private health data of study participants is federally illegal. This presents EPA researchers with two options – neglect their agency’s mission to “protect human health”, or risk criminal prosecution to justify regulations in the name of public health.
Status
Apr. 30th, 2018 IN RULEMAKING
Science Transparency Rule | Brookings Deregulatory Tracker
Mar. 18th, 2020 IN RULEMAKING
EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler proposed expanding the rule to apply to all “influential scientific information” and “important public policies or private sector decisions”.
EPA Proposal to Limit Use of Scientific Information | Climate Deregulation Tracker
Notables
- The revised version of the rule no longer requires studies to make all their underlying data publicly available – instead, it places those studies in a ‘secondary, less-preferred’ category.
Experts warn EPA making ‘secret science’ rule more restrictive | The Hill (3.8.20)
- Those opposing the rule argue that the new rule would make it easier for Trumps EPA to weaken or dismantle existing health regulations by allowing re-evaluation of regulations using their new criteria.
E.P.A. Updates Plan to Limit Science Used in Environmental Rules | New York Times (3.4.20)
- After its proposal, 69 professional and public health organizations, universities, and leading scientific journals publicly condemned the rule.
Even Geologists Hate the EPA’s New Science Rule | The Atlantic (7.17.18)
- 985 members of the Union of Concerned Scientists signed a letter in opposing the rule, with the top scientific journals signing a joint statement in opposition as well.
Joint statement on EPA proposed rule and public availability of data | American Association for the Advancement of Science (5.4.18)
