Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt announced a new rule Tuesday which would limit the type of science the agency can use when making new environmental rules.
According to Pruitt, with this new rule the EPA will no longer be able to rely on what he said was “secret science” research which hides the data behind it from the general public, but would make the whole process much more transparent. The goal of the rule is similar to that of the HONEST Act, legislation pushed by Representative Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House Science Committee. During the short event Tuesday announcing the rule, Pruitt thanked Smith.
“This is really a great day, it’s a banner day,” the EPA administrator said.
According to ABC News, he also noted that making public data available will allow outside groups or members of the public to try to replicate results cited in studies used to write new rules.
“The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end,” Pruitt said in a statement. “The ability to test, authenticate, and reproduce scientific findings is vital for the integrity of the rulemaking process. Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives.”
However, some disagree with Pruitt’s policy, saying that the new rule would only undermine rules intended to protect public health because the studies used to support those rules rely on private health data.
“Don’t be fooled by this talk of transparency. [Pruitt] and some conservative members of Congress are setting up a nonexistent problem in order to prevent the EPA from using the best available science,” former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy wrote in an op-ed piece.
About 1,000 scientists called on Pruitt in a letter to give up the proposal, which they maintain weaponizes the idea of “transparency” to allow political interference in decision-making that is supposed to be based on scientific evidence.
Smith said that personal information could be redacted, despite arguments from what he called “alarmist environmental groups.”
Be the first to comment