...
By Walter Rosenbaum
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's recent decision to replace half the members of an important EPA science advisory board with "representatives from industries whose pollution the agency is supposed to regulate" has incited intense controversy. And with good reason. Pruitt's decision is an assault on the scientific integrity of EPA's regulations and upon the scientists who advise the agency. It is part of an unprecedented, politically inspired strategy by the Trump administration, disguised as improved EPA management, meant to undermine the scientific foundation of many fundamental environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.
Replacing the boards current members with individuals closely associated with interests regulated by EPA would significantly enlarge corporate influence in regulatory rulemaking, while diminishing the role of academic scientists. Corporate critics have long asserted that EPA's academic scientists are biased toward regulations that often exceed EPA's authority and inhibit economic growth. Scott's decision is a leading edge of the Trump administration's effort to relax many of these regulations by challenging their scientific credibility and reducing the scientific resources supporting regulations opposed by powerful business interests.
Environmentalists have joined numerous scientific organizations in vigorous opposition to Scott's decision because it threatens the scientific integrity of EPA's most important environmental rulemaking. The decision also sends a potent signal to the scientific community that the new administration intends to make environmental science a partisan battleground where research supporting stringent regulations is suspect.
Read More on Opinion
Pruitt's decision affects EPAs Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), one of EPA's two most important scientific advisory groups. The BOSC was created to assure that EPA's scientific research office conducts its work with sufficient rigor and integrity. The board advises the office on the quality of its research concerning issues such as hazardous waste discharges, chemicals contributing to climate change, and the health risks of pesticides. The other panel, the larger Science Advisory Board, provides independent scientific advice directly to the EPA's administrator on complex scientific issues such chemical and ecological assessments, environmental justice, drinking water, and radiation. Academic scientists have traditionally been a majority of both Boards.
Scott Pruitt's proposal is among a multitude of decisions by the Trump administration which appear to threaten the quality of EPA's scientific decision making. Pruitt's appointment, for example, assures that an outspoken climate change skeptic will lead the agency. Trump has also proposed an 84% cut in the SAB's operating budget, already eliminated much scientific data from EPA's climate change website, and ordered a sweeping scientific review of recent EPA regulations such as the Obama Clean Power Plan.
Many other planned alterations in scientific support services, such as severe reductions in funding for BOSC meetings, are largely unrecognized outside the agency. The White House also strongly supports legislation recently passed by the House of Representatives which would expand industrial representation on the EPA's Science Advisory Board and greatly complicate appointment of academic scientists to the panel.
EPA is now especially vulnerable to Trump's scientific offensive. The Democratic majorities in in Congress which largely protected EPA science decisions from previous White House interference, especially during the Reagan Administration, have vanished. The controversy is unlikely to attract much public interest or understanding amid a multitude of more compelling and publicized public issues.
In short, the Trump administration's attack on EPA science is formidable. It's powerful in scale and potential to alter the quality and integrity of EPA's scientific research . The result may be one of the most damaging changes in EPA regulatory science since the agency's creation.
Walter A. Rosenbaum, Ph.D.Editor-in-Chief, Journal for Environmental Studies and Sciences, and Director Emeritus, Bob Graham Center for Public Service
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines