New EPA rule would limit science in policymaking

Scott Pruitt

Scott Pruitt is becoming one of the most dangerous and destructive members of Trump’s cabinet, and his latest move is right on par:

The Environmental Protection Agency announced a new regulation Tuesday that would restrict the kinds of scientific studies the agency can use when it develops policies, a move critics say will permanently weaken the agency’s ability to protect public health.

Under the measure, the E.P.A. will require that the underlying data for all scientific studies used by the agency to formulate air and water regulations be publicly available. That would sharply limit the number of studies available for consideration because much research relies on confidential health data from study subjects.

Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator, announced the proposed regulation this afternoon at agency headquarters, flanked by Republican lawmakers who sponsored legislation designed to achieve the same ends as the new regulation.

[…]

The new regulation means that some of the most important research of the past decades — for example, studies linking air pollution to premature deaths and measuring human exposure to pesticides — would not be available to policymakers if scientists were unwilling to break the confidentiality agreements they struck with study subjects in order to collect sensitive personal information.

Because if there’s one thing the US – or anyone – needs right now, it’s less science in policy-making. The government’s just been making too much sense these days; better curb that.

Is there a need to point out how there’s zero valid justification for this? Requiring that the agency only use studies built on publicly available data only makes sense if you believe confidential data is somehow unreliable – if all ’em researchers are part of a cabal funded by Big Science to falsify the numbers in order to sway legislators to vote for cleaner air and oceans under false pretenses. (Don’t expect climate conspiracists to make sense.)

Alternatively, it also makes sense if your goal is to discredit science and kneecap a federal agency that tries, with increasing futility, to control how much poison corporations can pump into our environment, all in an effort to make your rich CEO friends more money. But I’m sure that’s just crazy-talk.

(via @adamconover)