{"id":18250,"date":"2017-10-31T15:45:36","date_gmt":"2017-10-31T20:45:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/?p=18250"},"modified":"2017-11-01T10:48:01","modified_gmt":"2017-11-01T15:48:01","slug":"pruitt-takes-new-steps-to-remove-science-from-decisions-affecting-public-health-of-american-families","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2017\/10\/31\/pruitt-takes-new-steps-to-remove-science-from-decisions-affecting-public-health-of-american-families\/","title":{"rendered":"Pruitt takes steps to remove science from decisions affecting the health of American families"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Today EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced additions to the Agency\u2019s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Taken in conjunction with the drastic policy shift<\/a> also announced today, Pruitt is set to fundamentally undercut the role science in driving EPA decisions that directly affect the health and safety of American families and communities.<\/p>\n

The new policy would exclude any scientist receiving an EPA grant from serving on any of the agency\u2019s advisory panels. This creates a profound hypocrisy: under the policy scientists who take money from ExxonMobil or even Russia\u2014since funding from other governments wouldn\u2019t be disqualifying\u2014Pruitt would regard as trusted to offer impartial advice. Meanwhile, those who have grants from the US environmental agency \u2013 whose research program was praised by the National Academy of Sciences in a report just this past summer – cannot.<\/p>\n

In Pruitt\u2019s Alice-in-Wonderland world, the EPA advisory panels intended to ensure the agency is making use of the best and latest science should be populated overwhelmingly by industry-affiliated scientists, at the expense of independent academic scientists.<\/p>\n

Along with the policy, Pruitt\u2019s new appointments to the SAB and CASAC (see a selection of the reported<\/a> additions below) include longtime fossil fuel and chemical industry advocates, who have consistently played down or outright dismissed concerns about the risks of pollution or toxic chemical exposures based on discredited and outrageous scientific claims. Although the SAB is supposed to \u201cprovide independent advice and peer review on the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues to the EPA’s Administrator,\u201d these additions cannot be relied upon to faithfully uphold the Board\u2019s mission.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, Pruitt is also reportedly <\/a>taking the unprecedented step of not renewing any appointments for members whose terms expire this year. This allows Pruitt to reshape the panel in his own image more quickly.<\/p>\n

All told, the goal is as clear as it is concerning: to create a rubber-stamp set of scientific advisers that can distort the science while still lending an aura of credibility to Pruitt\u2019s destructive actions at the Agency.<\/p>\n

The real losers are not the researchers, but rather American families who depend on having an agency that actually works to protect their health.<\/p>\n

Meet some of Mr. Pruitt\u2019s new science\u00a0<\/strong>advisers<\/b><\/p>\n