{"id":7075,"date":"2017-10-31T13:44:43","date_gmt":"2017-10-31T18:44:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=7075"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:02:02","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:02:02","slug":"to-be-true-to-your-new-directive-mr-pruitt-you-need-to-fire-michael-dourson-today","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2017\/10\/31\/to-be-true-to-your-new-directive-mr-pruitt-you-need-to-fire-michael-dourson-today\/","title":{"rendered":"To be true to your new directive, Mr. Pruitt, you need to fire Michael Dourson today"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.,\u00a0<\/em>is a Lead Senior Scientist.<\/p>\n

[Use\u00a0<\/em>this link\u00a0<\/em><\/a>to see all of our posts on Dourson.]<\/em><\/p>\n

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive today<\/a> that prevents independent scientists who receive research grants from EPA from serving on any EPA advisory panels.\u00a0 Wholly unaddressed by the directive is any counterpart prohibition on scientists funded by industries with conflicts of interest from serving as EPA advisors.\u00a0\u00a0[pullquote]If Pruitt firmly believes that receipt of EPA funding is a basis for disqualifying a scientist from advising the agency, then he need look no further for someone to purge than his own recently named \u201cadvisor to the Administrator<\/a>\u201d on chemicals, Michael Dourson<\/a>.[\/pullquote]<\/p>\n

When it comes to advice the agency receives, the core concern over the need to avoid conflicts of interest is this:\u00a0 Is advice tainted because the entity employing and paying the advisor stands to gain or lose financially from the agency decision that is under advisement?\u00a0 Say, for example, EPA selected as an advisor a consultant to Koch Industries <\/a>who it paid for work that concluded the company\u2019s releases into the environment of the petcoke generated by its facilities are safe.\u00a0 A reasonable person would have a basis to believe that Koch could benefit financially from the advice its consultant might provide the agency.\u00a0 In contrast, how does EPA stand to benefit financially from the results of research conducted by an EPA-funded scientist?\u00a0 The simple answer is, it doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

Now let\u2019s look at it from the perspective of the scientist receiving the funding.\u00a0 Pruitt\u2019s directive is based on the outlandish premise that EPA funds research in order to find problems it can then regulate, and hence that an EPA-funded researcher has an incentive to find a problem in order to better ensure continued EPA funding.\u00a0 The claim is that the advice offered by that researcher would be \u201cpre-tainted\u201d toward supporting EPA policy decisions that drive regulation.\u00a0 This theory that imagines a grand conspiracy between researchers and the agency is inherently flawed and unfounded.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

First, it ignores the fact that a distinctly non-regulatory part of EPA \u2013 the Office of Research and Development \u2013 funds virtually all of EPA\u2019s extramural research.\u00a0 ORD is intentionally a separate entity within EPA that manages science issues, precisely to provide some degree of separation from the program offices that make regulatory decisions.<\/p>\n

Second, it ignores the process by which the agency\u2019s research dollars are awarded.\u00a0 These grants are competitive and grant applications undergo peer review <\/a>by outside scientists \u2013 just like research grants funded by the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health.<\/p>\n

Third, the results of EPA-funded extramural research must undergo another round of peer review in order to be published.\u00a0 To the extent Pruitt believes that EPA researchers conduct unsound science just in order to find a problem EPA can regulate, there are safeguards the scientific community adopted long ago and continues to refine to prevent such scientific fraud or misconduct and punish it severely.<\/p>\n

Folks, this is how public sector-funded science works across virtually every field of human inquiry.<\/p>\n

But don\u2019t take my word for the strength of EPA-funded research:\u00a0 Just this year, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a review of the agency\u2019s main research program<\/a>, called \u201cScience to Achieve Results\u201d (STAR).\u00a0 That review effectively raved about the program.\u00a0 Among its conclusions:<\/p>\n