<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Michael Halpern<\/a>, Deputy director, Center for Science & Democracy | March 18, 2020, 11:36 am EDT <\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nEnvironmental Protection Agency moved today<\/a> to restrict the types of research\nthat can be used in public health protection decisions and scientific\nassessments. In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the agency is recklessly\ngiving the public just 30 days to comment on this sweeping proposal. UCS developed a guide<\/a> to assist you in making a\npublic comment, and if you are able to do so, you should.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\n\u201csupplemental\u201d proposal, which builds on a previous effort<\/a>, would remove from\nconsideration or downweight thousands of scientific papers by public health\nscientists when the raw data behind these studies cannot be made public. So\nwhile these experts are the front lines of the fight against COVID-19, treating\npatients, researching vaccines, and educating the public about staying safe,\nthe EPA is trying to push this proposal through with as little criticism as\nthey can get away with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nAmerican Public Health Association, the American Lung Association, and scores\nof other scientific organizations all strongly opposed the original proposal<\/a> and\nurged EPA to withdraw it. Now, they will have to pull staff away from\nprotecting our country to write extensive comments to stop the EPA from\nsabotaging itself. It\u2019s a terrible diversion, but it\u2019s one they must take.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a letter sent this morning<\/a>, we asked EPA to\nextend the comment deadline and hold virtual public hearings. The\n\u201csupplemental\u201d proposal is significantly broader than the original. According\nto EPA, it would apply not only to studies behind EPA decisions about vehicle\nemissions, clean air standards, and clean water protections, but also EPA\u2019s own\n\u201cstate-of-science reports, technology assessments, weight-of-evidence analyses,\nmeta-analyses, risk assessments, toxicological profiles of substances,\nintegrated assessment models, hazard determinations, exposure assessments, or\nhealth, ecological, or safety assessments.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The EPA\nhas not articulated a problem it wants to solve. It faces no deadlines. But\nagency leaders see an opening. They feel compelled to carry out an idea hatched by tobacco industry lobbyists decades ago<\/a>.\nThe proposal was developed wholly by political staff<\/a>. The\nEPA\u2019s Science Advisory Board initially called it a \u201clicense to politicize<\/a>\u201d science and said that\nit would compromise the agency\u2019s decision-making process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because\nthis is written as a supplemental to the original rule, EPA will only take\ncomments that address the changes made in the supplemental. Therefore, you\nshould articulate how your comments respond to the document that was released\ntoday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At a\ntime when seeking out and utilizing cutting-edge research is a life or death\nsituation, the EPA is moving in the opposite direction. What EPA is saying here\nis that it wants political control over what research is used in any of the\nagency\u2019s work. Don\u2019t let them get away with this without a fight. Commit to\nwriting a public comment and we will provide you with the resources<\/a> you need to be\nmost effective. Note: the comment guide<\/a> has been updated with a link to\nthe public comment page on regulations.gov, which is now open. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Posted\nin: Science and Democracy<\/a> Tags: COVID-19<\/a>,\nrestricted science<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Michael Halpern, Deputy director, Center for Science & Democracy | March 18, 2020, 11:36 am EDT …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[],"post_folder":[],"class_list":["post-219","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-covid-19"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.une.edu\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.une.edu\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.une.edu\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.une.edu\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/49"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.une.edu\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/sites.une.edu\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":238,"href":"https:\/\/sites.une.edu\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219\/revisions\/238"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.une.edu\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.une.edu\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.une.edu\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219"},{"taxonomy":"post_folder","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.une.edu\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_folder?post=219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}