EPA rule to define acceptable science in decision making

This is not an Action Alert from Leauge of Women Voters, rather we are providing information on a pending goverment action that our readers may decide to comment on, with information from other organizations.  Note that the comment deadline is May 18.  

A recent email from the Water Protection Network urges readers to comment on a rule being proposed by EPA.  (MRN's appeal follows this paragraph, verbatim.)  This rule would set standards for the types of scientific research that can be used in environmental decision making.  On its face, it would make sense for EPA to define the level of  research that will be used  - as we are seeing now with covid research it seems that there is often incomplete, inconclusive or even conflicting conclusions that come out regularly.  It's important that the research that is used in decision-making reflects the current scientific understanding on a particular topic.  But if the constraints work to systematically exclude certain types of research, the quality of decision making is diminished.  So, here's the call-to-action paragraph from the Mississippi River Network

"Take Action Against EPA's Secret Science Rule
At a time when the importance of sound science-based decision-making is painfully clear, the Trump administration has proposed a rule that would impose sweeping restrictions on the types of scientific studies that can inform the regulatory decision-making process. Instead of "strengthening transparency" as the proposal claims to do, it is instead designed to "keep highly respected and peer-reviewed scientific studies from informing government decisions on public health and environmental protection" (Bruce Stein, NWF).

• Read the proposed rule from the EPA: "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science"
• Take action: Submit a comment through regulations.gov here by the May 18 comment deadline, or through one of these action pages from WPN members National Wildlife Federation and NRDC.
• Learn more from WPN member Environmental Law & Policy Center: In Public Health Crisis, Trump Administration Continues Attacks on Public Health Studies"

Following the links in this paragraph leads the reader to EPA's proposal in the Federal Register and a March 23, 2020, blog post by  Ann Mesnikoff of the Environmental Law and Policy Center.  Reading the EPA proposal it is hard to sort out what there is to be concerned about.  There is a link in Ann's blog post taking the reader to Ann's December 4, 2019 post, where she provides more background on the rule.  She says, "The rule requires all of the data underpinning EPA legislation to be publicly available or otherwise replicable. However, there are multiple reasons why some studies can’t be replicated or made fully available. Privacy rules and patient protections prevent individual health data from being released. Raw data or original conditions may no longer exist, such as lead exposure from leaded gasoline, which has been banned now for decades. Scientific research is built around long-term and health-based research, so there are long-established methods for evaluating in these situations. The new “transparency” rule would not lead to more transparent research; it would only bar EPA from using critical scientific information."

This action is just one of a myriad of ways that the rules protecting our air, land and water are being weakened.  Sigh.  Push back will be timely,.  
 
Picture below - How institutions are approaching scientific research during Covid-19