World Report
Republicans’ bills target science at US environment agency Proposed legislation would change how the US Environmental Protection Agency uses science to determine pollution limits. The Lancet’s Washington correspondent Susan Jaffe reports.
www.thelancet.com Vol 385 March 28, 2015
the regulatory programmes coming out of EPA, which means they often don’t like the scientific evidence”, Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told The Lancet. “Since it is very difficult to argue that we don’t need clean air or we don’t need clean water, they are attacking the process by which the regulations are created.”
“‘What’s going on here is that conservative members of Congress don’t like the results of the regulatory programmes coming out of EPA...’” The second measure—the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015—would change the composition of the board, require that the members’ scientific and technical views “are fairly balanced”, and that individuals with “a potential interest” in the board’s activities are not excluded as long as it is disclosed. At least 10% of the membership would be drawn from state, local, or tribal government agencies. Board members would be barred from participating in matters that involve an entity in which they have an interest or from reviews involving their own work (unless that association was disclosed). “This bill strengthens the EPA Science Advisory Board’s independence so that the Administration cannot manipulate science to further its political agenda”, Oklahoma Republican Frank Lucas , the bill’s lead sponsor, said shortly before House Republicans overwhelmingly approved it, after persuading only two Democrats to join them. Opponents have interpreted the provision to mean membership would be open further to industry representatives. The 47 members of the
advisory board and the 115 members of its specialised investigative panels come primarily from a wide array of the nation’s universities and research institutes, with a small minority coming from medical centres, private consulting groups or businesses, state environmental or health agencies, and environmental advocacy groups. The legislation “would provide a more balanced representation on the Science Advisory Board”, said Texas Republican Michael Burgess during the House debate, “so the board is not comprised solely of environmental activists, as has been the case for some time now. Indeed, current regulations exclude industry experts from serving on the Science Advisory Board but not officials from environmental advocacy groups— in other words, special interests.”
“Secret Science” or Catch-22? “This legislative effort is just going to make it that much harder for EPA to take any action”, said John Balmes, a professor of medicine at the University of California and professor of environmental health sciences at the University of California’s School of Public Health. In addition to publishing numerous articles on how
Bloomberg/Contributor
Approval of two controversial environmental bills in the US House of Representatives last week was the latest assault in the Republicans’ “war on science”, according to Democrats. Republicans, however, considered it a big step towards assuring that federal environmental regulations are based on solid scientific research. Despite the sharp difference of opinion along political lines, both sides claim to pursue similar goals—to keep the agency responsible for protecting the nation’s health and environment impartial and closely guided by the best science. The debate moves next to the US Senate, where the new Republican majority is expected to be far more supportive than last year, when Democrats were in charge. President Barack Obama’s likely veto has not deterred Republican proponents, who point to strategies that could make a veto unpalatable or vulnerable to a Senate override vote. The Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 would prohibit the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from proposing or finalising any policy “unless all scientific and technical information” officials relied on is “the best available science” and is “publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results”. “The days of ‘trust me’ science are over”, the bill’s lead sponsor, Texas Republican Lamar Smith, told The Lancet. “The American people deserve to see the data.” All but one House Republican voted for the bill, along with just four Democrats. Critics have quite a different view of the Republican effort. “What’s going on here is that conservative members of Congress don’t like the results of
US Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington, DC
1167
World Report
various air pollutants cause lung or cardiovascular disease, Balmes serves on an EPA sulphur oxides advisory panel and is the physician member of the California Air Resources Board, a state regulatory agency. “I don’t have any problem with scientists reviewing each other’s work, but I do have a problem when it’s mandated that data be turned over—and they are talking about every single scrap of data”, Balmes told The Lancet. Disclosing this information could violate researchers’ promise of confidentiality for study participants’ health information. Names could be stripped out of the data, but participants could be identified by their addresses. Their location and distance from air-quality monitors and pollution sources are essential ingredients in showing “whether greater exposures cause greater effects”, he said. “If subject 392 lives at 1 Shady Lane in a given town and has heart disease and diabetes, you are learning something about that person you are not supposed to know”, he said. Federal law prohibits the public disclosure of confidential medical information. Paul Billings, senior vice president of advocacy and education at the American Lung Association, worries that if the legislation ultimately becomes law, research will become more difficult. “People won’t participate in studies if they think that their confidentiality is going to be pierced”, he told The Lancet. Public disclosure of data to replicate studies—as the legislation requires— isn’t necessary, said Balmes. “There are hundreds of studies that show an effect between fine particulate matter and mortality”, he said. “If you come out with something and nobody can replicate it, then it is usually not believed”, he added. “There is already a sceptical audience among scientists.” The “secret science” legislation puts the EPA in a Catch-22 situation, said 1168
Rosenberg of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “If EPA can only regulate if all of the data used to craft the regulation is publicly available then, if it is not publicly available, EPA can’t regulate”, he said.
Expanding perspective Representative Lamar Smith, who is also chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, said it is about more than just data. “It’s about an agency that apparently doesn’t trust the public.” “The EPA thinks it knows better than the American people what’s good for them”, he said. “An open government that is accountable to the people is essential to protect Americans from excessive government control.”
“...health and environmental groups have urged Congress to reject both bills...” Revamping the EPA’s Science Advisory Board will also improve accountability by expanding the views represented among its members, including experts from the private sector whose knowledge and contributions the EPA has ignored, Representative Lucas noted during the House debate. The measure has been backed by leading business associations, including the US Chamber of Commerce, which advocates on behalf of more than 3 million American businesses of all sizes, along with industry groups and local chambers of commerce. By contrast, health and environmental groups have urged Congress to reject both bills, including the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, Trust for America’s Health, the American Thoracic Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Allergy & Asthma Network. “The board’s composition is primarily academics, which in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing”, Michael Honeycutt, director of toxicology at the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, told The Lancet. “But academic people sometimes don’t have the real-world experience that someone from a state agency or a tribal agency or local agency has.” He mentioned the EPA’s proposal to tighten its ozone standard, which he predicts will not result in a measurable health benefit despite the EPA’s studies showing otherwise. “A more balanced group would have pushed EPA harder on that.” Although supporters deny that the two EPA bills represent a circuitous attempt to block environmental regulations, they have criticised some of the EPA’s actions as governmental over-reach—particularly carbon dioxide and ozone limits—and are unlikely to be disappointed if the EPA has to slow down or even roll back some regulatory activities. “Conservatives in this body believe that Congress should not tolerate an Administration who refuses to make public the scientific data behind numerous EPA regulations, regulations that are crippling the ability of businesses to survive in this economic climate created and sustained by the failed policies of this Administration”, Representative Doug Collins, a Georgia Republican, said during the House debate on the bills. A spokeswoman for EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy declined to comment on the legislation but last year McCarthy told an audience at the National Academy of Sciences that claims of “secret science” are “not really about EPA science or secrets”. “It’s about claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyse it—and won’t agree to protect it. If EPA is being accused of ‘secret science’ because we rely on real scientists to conduct research, and independent scientists to peer review it, and scientists who’ve spent a lifetime studying the science to reproduce it, then so be it.”
Susan Jaffe www.thelancet.com Vol 385 March 28, 2015
Republicans’ bills target science at US environment agency Proposed legislation would change how the US Environmental Protection Agency uses science to determine pollution limits. The Lancet’s Washington correspondent Susan Jaffe reports.
www.thelancet.com Vol 385 March 28, 2015
the regulatory programmes coming out of EPA, which means they often don’t like the scientific evidence”, Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told The Lancet. “Since it is very difficult to argue that we don’t need clean air or we don’t need clean water, they are attacking the process by which the regulations are created.”
“‘What’s going on here is that conservative members of Congress don’t like the results of the regulatory programmes coming out of EPA...’” The second measure—the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015—would change the composition of the board, require that the members’ scientific and technical views “are fairly balanced”, and that individuals with “a potential interest” in the board’s activities are not excluded as long as it is disclosed. At least 10% of the membership would be drawn from state, local, or tribal government agencies. Board members would be barred from participating in matters that involve an entity in which they have an interest or from reviews involving their own work (unless that association was disclosed). “This bill strengthens the EPA Science Advisory Board’s independence so that the Administration cannot manipulate science to further its political agenda”, Oklahoma Republican Frank Lucas , the bill’s lead sponsor, said shortly before House Republicans overwhelmingly approved it, after persuading only two Democrats to join them. Opponents have interpreted the provision to mean membership would be open further to industry representatives. The 47 members of the
advisory board and the 115 members of its specialised investigative panels come primarily from a wide array of the nation’s universities and research institutes, with a small minority coming from medical centres, private consulting groups or businesses, state environmental or health agencies, and environmental advocacy groups. The legislation “would provide a more balanced representation on the Science Advisory Board”, said Texas Republican Michael Burgess during the House debate, “so the board is not comprised solely of environmental activists, as has been the case for some time now. Indeed, current regulations exclude industry experts from serving on the Science Advisory Board but not officials from environmental advocacy groups— in other words, special interests.”
“Secret Science” or Catch-22? “This legislative effort is just going to make it that much harder for EPA to take any action”, said John Balmes, a professor of medicine at the University of California and professor of environmental health sciences at the University of California’s School of Public Health. In addition to publishing numerous articles on how
Bloomberg/Contributor
Approval of two controversial environmental bills in the US House of Representatives last week was the latest assault in the Republicans’ “war on science”, according to Democrats. Republicans, however, considered it a big step towards assuring that federal environmental regulations are based on solid scientific research. Despite the sharp difference of opinion along political lines, both sides claim to pursue similar goals—to keep the agency responsible for protecting the nation’s health and environment impartial and closely guided by the best science. The debate moves next to the US Senate, where the new Republican majority is expected to be far more supportive than last year, when Democrats were in charge. President Barack Obama’s likely veto has not deterred Republican proponents, who point to strategies that could make a veto unpalatable or vulnerable to a Senate override vote. The Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 would prohibit the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from proposing or finalising any policy “unless all scientific and technical information” officials relied on is “the best available science” and is “publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results”. “The days of ‘trust me’ science are over”, the bill’s lead sponsor, Texas Republican Lamar Smith, told The Lancet. “The American people deserve to see the data.” All but one House Republican voted for the bill, along with just four Democrats. Critics have quite a different view of the Republican effort. “What’s going on here is that conservative members of Congress don’t like the results of
US Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington, DC
1167
World Report
various air pollutants cause lung or cardiovascular disease, Balmes serves on an EPA sulphur oxides advisory panel and is the physician member of the California Air Resources Board, a state regulatory agency. “I don’t have any problem with scientists reviewing each other’s work, but I do have a problem when it’s mandated that data be turned over—and they are talking about every single scrap of data”, Balmes told The Lancet. Disclosing this information could violate researchers’ promise of confidentiality for study participants’ health information. Names could be stripped out of the data, but participants could be identified by their addresses. Their location and distance from air-quality monitors and pollution sources are essential ingredients in showing “whether greater exposures cause greater effects”, he said. “If subject 392 lives at 1 Shady Lane in a given town and has heart disease and diabetes, you are learning something about that person you are not supposed to know”, he said. Federal law prohibits the public disclosure of confidential medical information. Paul Billings, senior vice president of advocacy and education at the American Lung Association, worries that if the legislation ultimately becomes law, research will become more difficult. “People won’t participate in studies if they think that their confidentiality is going to be pierced”, he told The Lancet. Public disclosure of data to replicate studies—as the legislation requires— isn’t necessary, said Balmes. “There are hundreds of studies that show an effect between fine particulate matter and mortality”, he said. “If you come out with something and nobody can replicate it, then it is usually not believed”, he added. “There is already a sceptical audience among scientists.” The “secret science” legislation puts the EPA in a Catch-22 situation, said 1168
Rosenberg of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “If EPA can only regulate if all of the data used to craft the regulation is publicly available then, if it is not publicly available, EPA can’t regulate”, he said.
Expanding perspective Representative Lamar Smith, who is also chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, said it is about more than just data. “It’s about an agency that apparently doesn’t trust the public.” “The EPA thinks it knows better than the American people what’s good for them”, he said. “An open government that is accountable to the people is essential to protect Americans from excessive government control.”
“...health and environmental groups have urged Congress to reject both bills...” Revamping the EPA’s Science Advisory Board will also improve accountability by expanding the views represented among its members, including experts from the private sector whose knowledge and contributions the EPA has ignored, Representative Lucas noted during the House debate. The measure has been backed by leading business associations, including the US Chamber of Commerce, which advocates on behalf of more than 3 million American businesses of all sizes, along with industry groups and local chambers of commerce. By contrast, health and environmental groups have urged Congress to reject both bills, including the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, Trust for America’s Health, the American Thoracic Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Allergy & Asthma Network. “The board’s composition is primarily academics, which in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing”, Michael Honeycutt, director of toxicology at the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, told The Lancet. “But academic people sometimes don’t have the real-world experience that someone from a state agency or a tribal agency or local agency has.” He mentioned the EPA’s proposal to tighten its ozone standard, which he predicts will not result in a measurable health benefit despite the EPA’s studies showing otherwise. “A more balanced group would have pushed EPA harder on that.” Although supporters deny that the two EPA bills represent a circuitous attempt to block environmental regulations, they have criticised some of the EPA’s actions as governmental over-reach—particularly carbon dioxide and ozone limits—and are unlikely to be disappointed if the EPA has to slow down or even roll back some regulatory activities. “Conservatives in this body believe that Congress should not tolerate an Administration who refuses to make public the scientific data behind numerous EPA regulations, regulations that are crippling the ability of businesses to survive in this economic climate created and sustained by the failed policies of this Administration”, Representative Doug Collins, a Georgia Republican, said during the House debate on the bills. A spokeswoman for EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy declined to comment on the legislation but last year McCarthy told an audience at the National Academy of Sciences that claims of “secret science” are “not really about EPA science or secrets”. “It’s about claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyse it—and won’t agree to protect it. If EPA is being accused of ‘secret science’ because we rely on real scientists to conduct research, and independent scientists to peer review it, and scientists who’ve spent a lifetime studying the science to reproduce it, then so be it.”
Susan Jaffe www.thelancet.com Vol 385 March 28, 2015
