Pruitt Says No More Studies Based On "Secret Science"

What’s the story?

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt has announced that he will no longer allow the agency to use scientific studies that do not include publicly available data. Supporters of Pruitt’s move refer to the studies on public health and the environment by independent organizations and private companies as "secret science", but critics say that characterization is misleading and dangerous.

Pruitt appears to be basing his new policy, the details of which have not yet been announced, on the HONEST Act, which requires that any studies used by the EPA be "transparent" and “reproducible”. All data used to draw study conclusions must be “publicly available online in a way that allows for independent analysis and reproduction of the research results.”

Pruitt has said, "We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record. Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important."

Critics of Pruitt’s move, however, maintain that such a policy will cripple the agency’s ability to develop good policy. In an op-ed in the New York Times, Gina McCarthy, an environmental health and air quality expert, and Janet McCabe, a Senior Fellow at the Environmental Law & Policy Center, argue that many peer-reviewed, public health studies are built on individual health records that are confidential by law. The data is summarized to be compliant with the law.

Additionally, studies conducted by industry groups are often based either on studies involving individuals who have been guaranteed privacy of their personal information or trade secrets.

These are the types of studies that were used to formulate many of the environmental and public health policies in place today. Half of them would be disallowed under Pruitt’s new policy.

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of a similar bill introduced in 2015 estimated that it would cost upwards of $250 million a year for several years to establish new systems for data collection, presentation and dissemination. It did not account for the costs to redact all confidential personal or business information.

Other agencies, like the Food and Drug Administration, use the types of studies that Pruitt will no longer allow to be used by the EPA. It is unclear if Pruitt’s move will prompt similar changes in other agencies.

What do you think?

Do you think policy decisions should only be based on studies involving publicly available data? Why or why not?

Tell us in the comments what you think, then use the Take Action button to tell your reps!

Take Action

— Asha Sanaker

(Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr / Creative Commons)