No Science Zone

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Sea Save Foundation

Contributor
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
79
Location
Malibu, California
Is the United States Becoming a "No Science Zone?"

The House voted Wednesday to restrict the kind of scientific studies and data that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can use to justify new regulations.
Read More…

no_science.jpg
 
Thread title is grossly misleading. Read the attached article. Some quotes:

"The Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act, or HONEST Act, passed 228-194. It would prohibit the EPA from writing any regulation that uses science that is not publicly available."

"But Democrats, environmentalists and health advocates say the HONEST Act is intended to handcuff the EPA. They say it would irresponsibly leave the EPA unable to write important regulatory protections, since the agency might not have the ability to release some parts of the scientific data underpinning them."

"He said the EPA — particularly under former President Obama — often hid the data it used in regulations, preventing the public and peer scrutiny that helps ensure the science is the best available.

“We all care about the environment,” he said. “But if policies are not based on legitimate science, regulations will result in economic hardship with little or no environmental benefit. In other words, the regulations would be all pain and no gain.”

The bill would also require that any scientific studies be replicable, and allow anyone who signs a confidentiality agreement to view redacted personal or trade information in data."

"She denied that the EPA is overly secretive with its science, saying it often doesn’t own the information and has no right to release it."

Seems to me those are the key points. Seems like reasonable requirements to justify laws with far-reaching implications for the citizenry and businesses. Science is often praised as data-based rather than faith-based. Okay, then...cough up the data that backs your policy.

This is far from creating a 'No Science Zone.'

Richard.
 
Thread title is grossly misleading. Read the attached article. Some quotes:

"The Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act, or HONEST Act, passed 228-194. It would prohibit the EPA from writing any regulation that uses science that is not publicly available."

"But Democrats, environmentalists and health advocates say the HONEST Act is intended to handcuff the EPA. They say it would irresponsibly leave the EPA unable to write important regulatory protections, since the agency might not have the ability to release some parts of the scientific data underpinning them."

"He said the EPA — particularly under former President Obama — often hid the data it used in regulations, preventing the public and peer scrutiny that helps ensure the science is the best available.

“We all care about the environment,” he said. “But if policies are not based on legitimate science, regulations will result in economic hardship with little or no environmental benefit. In other words, the regulations would be all pain and no gain.”

The bill would also require that any scientific studies be replicable, and allow anyone who signs a confidentiality agreement to view redacted personal or trade information in data."

"She denied that the EPA is overly secretive with its science, saying it often doesn’t own the information and has no right to release it."

Seems to me those are the key points. Seems like reasonable requirements to justify laws with far-reaching implications for the citizenry and businesses. Science is often praised as data-based rather than faith-based. Okay, then...cough up the data that backs your policy.

This is far from creating a 'No Science Zone.'

Richard.
That is quite a jug of kool-aid you're drinking there Richard. . .

But critics argue the bill would severely limit the kind of science the EPA could use in justifying regulations and would place a number of unnecessary burdens on EPA scientists. Public health studies that use confidential information protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), for instance, could not be used by EPA scientists because personal health data is protected and not publicly available — even when studies using that data have gone through a peer-review process and been published.

Simply put, the Republican Legislature is at war with science, (e.g. climate change is unproven) and this is just another fig leaf they're trying to paste on their agenda.
 
Indeed, the current administration initially tried to place a gag order on the climate science research conducted by the EPA. So effectively scientists would be unable to publicly communicate their fundings that tax dollars paid for. In my entire career as a scientist I've never been so afraid.
 
So what specifically in this act is so objectionable? From the referenced article:

"But Democrats, environmentalists and health advocates say the HONEST Act is intended to handcuff the EPA. They say it would irresponsibly leave the EPA unable to write important regulatory protections, since the agency might not have the ability to release some parts of the scientific data underpinning them."

Should we have laws imposed on us based on scientific data we can't see and review? If it's going to be used to legislate us, why is it not public? One of the strengths of the scientific community is the offering up of research articles with described methodology, detailed resultant data and statistical analysis, then published in peer-reviewed journals where they can be viewed, discussed and at times challenged by the scientific community.

That part, at least, seems strange to me as an obstacle for whatever the EPA is out to do. It takes no Kool-aid to ask about that.

Richard.
 
So what specifically in this act is so objectionable? From the referenced article:

"But Democrats, environmentalists and health advocates say the HONEST Act is intended to handcuff the EPA. They say it would irresponsibly leave the EPA unable to write important regulatory protections, since the agency might not have the ability to release some parts of the scientific data underpinning them."

Should we have laws imposed on us based on scientific data we can't see and review? If it's going to be used to legislate us, why is it not public? One of the strengths of the scientific community is the offering up of research articles with described methodology, detailed resultant data and statistical analysis, then published in peer-reviewed journals where they can be viewed, discussed and at times challenged by the scientific community.

That part, at least, seems strange to me as an obstacle for whatever the EPA is out to do. It takes no Kool-aid to ask about that.

Richard.
I'm happy to see you are a proponent of peer review. I agree that one of the strengths of the scientific community is the process of peer reviewed articles. By this legislation, a peer review article that relies on data whose granularity is protected by HIPPA could not be used. Blithely saying that the data could be redacted just is a smokescreen. Who redacts the data, who is responsible if something that could identify an individual manages to slip through, who reviews the redaction? All of this is merely an not-so-transparent attempt to make the process so onerous that it will become too difficult to use.

The intent of the legislature is to further restrict the influence of science on the drafting of rules. I firmly believe that the EPA (for example) acts in the best interest of the society as a whole. In fact by law, new regulations must include a cost/benefit analysis and can only be adopted if the benefit outweighs the cost. Since it is hard to argue with facts, 'alternative facts', or making facts so difficult to establish is the seems to be the preferred path.

So the question on the table, is that kool-aid grape or cherry?
 
I have read that scientists can only get permission to conduct environmental testing in private land if they promise anonymous data collection, since landowners don't want the government or the EPA to start ordering them around based on what they find. Some examples are: levels of pollutants, counts of different species, genetic diversity of populations or even health of populations of critters.
 
HIPPA is intended to prevent unauthorized disclosure of protected personal health information. Despite HIPPA, I've seen continued publication of medical research in peer-reviewed journals, and of course a lot of U.S.-based research gets published based on data/research from outside the U.S., too.

Do we have any clear indication this legislation will prevent the EPA from using scientific evidence without producing personally identifiable health information on people effected?

Blithely saying that the data could be redacted just is a smokescreen. Who redacts the data, who is responsible if something that could identify an individual manages to slip through, who reviews the redaction?

This would already be required to happen, I would think. I don't imagine the EPA would make unauthorized disclosure of identifiable personal health information. In fact, most any publicly published scientific group study in health care presents aggregate data. Discussions of individual cases use fake names or grant anonymity by using 'Ms. M.' for example.

The government can handle and protect personal health information; Medicare and Medicaid should be evidence of that.

Richard.
 

Back
Top Bottom