Author Topic: EPA New Science Rule  (Read 2377 times)

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
EPA New Science Rule
« on: April 26, 2018, 09:57:33 PM »
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/new-rule-could-force-epa-ignore-major-human-health-studies

This seems like a blatant attempt to force the EPA to ignore all epidemiological studies to the benefit of people making stuff that harms our health.

I think this rule would also allow them to ignore some climate models because some of the data provided to the climate researches was done so by governments who did not want all of the data published.

I guess that is a win?-win? for conservatives?

This seems like a policy that was arrived at through outcomes based rule making. I imagine the true reasoning went something like this

Pruitt: "How could we ignore all these health impact studies and make it sound like a reasonable policy?"
lobbyist: "I know these studies can't publish their data so lets make that a requirement for using the results."

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: EPA New Science Rule
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2018, 10:11:22 AM »
So your reaction to a policy that science that will dictate not inform our public policy be required to open it's data for verification to the polity is one of alarm?  Honestly, secret data should never have been used in the first place.  You understand that some journals require the same standard for publication, that the data is required for verification, and that a policy built on data that's wrong or misinterpreted but that we never discover cause it's "secret" could have lasting impacts on the country and the world?

The real concerns here can almost all be addressed with anonymization, which is something that is already being actively address in the data markets.

In fact, given that our government is only permitted secrets on certain limited basis (which granted it's now routinely abusing) I'm not sure how its even reasonable to maintain a case against transparency of data that for the most part there is no need to keep secret.

EDIT - Honestly, the fact that your article immediately goes to personally identifiable data is complete nonsense.  The proposed rule specifically exempts PII and PII has multiple legal protections throughout national, state and global law.  It's literally an attempt at a fear based argument based on a lie.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 10:18:42 AM by Seriati »

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: EPA New Science Rule
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2018, 11:59:13 AM »
So you don't see any problem with Scot Pruitt requiring scientists to break the law in order to have the legitimate results of their research considered by the EPA?  Does that sound reasonable to you?

Because that's what he's doing.  Scientists do not own all the data they use for their studies.  Oftentimes, they have to buy that information, just like you have to buy music.  And they often come with limitations of who can see the data and who can use it.  They don't have carte blanche to publish all the data.  This runs the gamut from epidemiological studies to simple temperature measurements in foreign countries.  Breaking those contracts would have financial and legal consequences, not to mention making negotiations for further data more difficult, if not impossible.

So Pruitt is basically hamstringing such studies with an unreasonable demand.  Because that data is available, just like music.  All you have to do is pay for it, promise to adhere to the required restrictions, and use it for legitimate purposes.  But of course there are those who don't want to pay for it, don't want any restrictions on it, and only want it to dispute findings they don't like.  And Pruitt appears to be supporting such people, not by providing them the data, but by ignoring the results of the data.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: EPA New Science Rule
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2018, 01:37:23 PM »
First of all that's a problem that's easily solvable.  There's absolutely no reason the persons who want to access the data could not be required to pay the owner of the data - on the same terms as the original person.  But more significantly - to me - there's no legitimacy to the idea that the government should be basing policy on data that it has not seen and does not have access to.  Even if you bar public release, it should be required to be turned over the government.  I mean honestly, Congress could subpoena the data in connection with it's law making authority and regulations are deliberately designed to be implemented under that authority.

Or how about this.  You keep your secrecy, but from now on you have to accept any research product I put forward as valid without seeing my data, and we'll use that to make policy.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: EPA New Science Rule
« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2018, 01:45:12 PM »
Quote
This seems like a policy that was arrived at through outcomes based rule making.
Just from the brief discussion here, it seems artfully done.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: EPA New Science Rule
« Reply #5 on: April 27, 2018, 02:00:27 PM »
Seriously?  The EPA has been famous for decades for policies based on outcomes based rule making.  That's literally the entire beef that the Republicans have had with them.  Extensions of rules into areas not authorized, use of collusive litigation with environmental grounds to exceed authority, deciding what the outcome should be and obtaining "research" to support it.

It's the epitome of an agency that makes arguments from authority.  Requiring it to show the basis of that authority is the minimum that should be required.  We don't allow expert testimony without a chance to rebut it.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 02:02:32 PM by Seriati »