Read on Twitter
The administration's rule to restrict EPA science--which was unilaterally opposed by the scientific community in nearly a million comments--will be finalized. Some thoughts in a THREAD... https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/01/04/epa-scientific-transparency/
They claim the final rule has been "narrowed" because it is focused on dose-response data. But substantial parts of EPA work concerns this fundamental question: At what level is this pollutant harmful to public health and the environment?" Thus, this is anything but narrow.
EPA cannot do its job of protecting the public if it must jump through hoops to even be able to access the science that informs their decisions.
We shouldn't overlook how bonkers this rule is, and has always been. https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/epa-rule-restricting-science-puts-agencys-mission-risk-0
We shouldn't overlook how bonkers this rule is, and has always been. https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/epa-rule-restricting-science-puts-agencys-mission-risk-0
If the EPA would like to rely on science with data that cannot be made public (e.g. personal health data), they now have to give it less consideration.
TLDR: In many cases, EPA is now required to downgrade the most important and relevant scientific studies to its job.
TLDR: In many cases, EPA is now required to downgrade the most important and relevant scientific studies to its job.
Notably, the final version of this rule places a tremendous burden on researchers, who now must go to great lengths to pass their data, methods, models, details to anyone who asks for it, after running the gauntlet of peer-review, if they want their work to inform EPA.
Look how excessive the rule requirements are for making your work "available in a manner sufficient for independent validation."
This is more hoop-jumping and handholding than researchers provide to their own students (and goes far beyond what's necessary for peer-review).
This is more hoop-jumping and handholding than researchers provide to their own students (and goes far beyond what's necessary for peer-review).
The final rule doesn't appear to apply to studies done previously. This is good news for EPA's ability to use the Harvard Six Cities study and thousands of others, but it will disrupt EPA's ability to protect the public from new and emerging risks and that threatens us all.
Much has been said about how damaging this rule will be.
(e.g. here: https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/the-trump-epa-is-restricting-epa-science-its-somehow-worse-than-we-expected or here: https://undark.org/2019/11/21/opinion-trump-epa-transparency-rule/ )
The final rule has done nothing to lessen those harms. This must be undone.
(e.g. here: https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/the-trump-epa-is-restricting-epa-science-its-somehow-worse-than-we-expected or here: https://undark.org/2019/11/21/opinion-trump-epa-transparency-rule/ )
The final rule has done nothing to lessen those harms. This must be undone.
