Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt unveiled his “secret science” initiative yesterday at a press conference to which no press were invited. While EPA has yet to post the proposed rule or otherwise make it available to the public, it was made available by others. The main thrust of the proposal is actually considerably different and, at least initially, more targeted, than advertised by Pruitt in recent weeks and by the House of Representatives Science Committee’s Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), who authored the secret science legislation on which Pruitt’s proposal was to be based and appeared with Pruitt yesterday.
Yesterday both men stuck to their earlier talking points about the need to make sure all information EPA relies on is reproducible and fully publicly available, and never mentioned the change in the focus of the proposal. I suspect both of them would have been hard pressed to describe the actual main focus of the proposal, which is now this:
When promulgating significant regulatory actions, the Agency shall ensure that dose response data and models underlying pivotal regulatory science are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation. (p. 23, emphases in original)
But I am sure Dr. Nancy Beck, chemical industry toxicologist turned top political appointee in EPA’s toxics office, could in a heartbeat.
I would describe the new approach, while no less dangerous, as a laser-guided missile in comparison to the carpet-bombing approach taken by the House legislation and earlier iterations of the EPA proposal. Read More