Should the EPA Science Advisory Board be Reformed? (H.R. 1431)
Do you support or oppose this bill?
What is H.R. 1431?
(Updated January 22, 2020)
This bill would revise the process by which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chooses members for their Science Advisory Board (SAB) as it relates to the qualifications of members and the disclosures they're required to make. The EPA would be required to solicit nominations for membership from the public and relevant federal agencies, like the Depts. of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, and Health and Human Services. Nominees would be required to file a report disclosing their financial relationships and interests for a three year period prior to their nomination, and relevant professional activities or comments for a five year period.
Avoiding making non-scientific policy determinations or recommendations.
Communicating uncertainties in scientific findings and conclusions.
Allowing dissenting members’ views to be expressed.
Periodic reviews to ensure that the Board’s activities address the most important scientific issues affecting the EPA.
Argument in favor
This bill will enhance the diversity of thought and perspective on the EPA's Science Advisory Board while also reducing conflicts of interest and expanding opportunities for public involvement.
Argument opposed
Keeping scientists who have received EPA grants off of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board would dilute the pool of talent available to consult on critical environmental protection issues.
Impact
Members of the public who want to make a public comment on environmental reviews; members of the Science Advisory Board; people nominated for SAB positions; and the EPA.
Cost of H.R. 1431
The CBO estimates that enacting this bill would cost less than $500,000 annually.
Additional Info
In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) introduced this bill to enhance transparency and increase the public's role in the EPA's science review process:
"The Science Advisory Board (SAB) provides valuable input used to justify policy decisions that impact the lives of millions of Americans. Unfortunately, limited public participation, EPA interference with expert advice, and conflicts of interest threaten to undermine the Board's independence and credibility... The safeguards provided in this bill will restore the SAB as an important defender of scientific integrity and promote more credible and balanced policy outcomes from the EPA."
"negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB."
-
House Science, Space, & Technology Committee Press Release
-
CBO Cost Estimate
-
Law 360
-
JunkScience (In Favor)
-
The Atlantic (Opposed)
-
Buzzfeed (Opposed)
-
Union of Concerned Scientists (Opposed)
-
Wired (Opposed)
The Latest
-
🌎 Are You Ready To Take Action Against Climate Change?Scientists claim that last year "smashed" the record for the hottest year by a large margin , offering a "dramatic testimony" of read more... Environment
-
Should U.S. Implement a New Tax on AI to Fund Worker Benefits?The debate As technology advances, artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more integrated into our society. While leaders in AI read more... Artificial Intelligence
-
SCOTUS Hears Arguments of Abortion Pill Mifepristone CaseUpdated March 27, 2024, 12:30 p.m. EST On Tuesday, March 26, the Supreme Court heard arguments about the mifepristone case, read more... Women's Health
-
IT: ⛑️ It's American Red Cross Giving Day, and... How will you give back today?Welcome to Wednesday, March 27th, philanthropists and entrepreneurs... It's American Red Cross Giving Day - a time to ensure the read more...