5 ms·

Text of the HONEST Act: > (Sec. 2) This bill amends the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to prohibit the Enviro

Text of the HONEST Act: > (Sec. 2) This bill amends the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such action is the best available science, specifically identified, and publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results. A covered action includes a risk, exposure, or hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or guidance. Personally identifiable information, trade secrets, or commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential must be redacted prior to public availability. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1430 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1430

yorwba 9y ago
This seems to me like a perfectly reasonable step towards scientifically guided governance, so I don't get why this is framed as some kind of attack on the role of the EPA. I would in fact prefer if any government agency would only rely on "scientific and technical information" if it is "the best available science, specifically identified, and publicly available". No cherry-picking of your studies, no reliance on confidential research that can't be verified.
- politician 9y ago
  Hint: The loophole is in the word "best". Note how this is a 3 part test, yet one of the conditions is subjective.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    That's what courts are for, isn't it? Someone claims that the EPA did not use the "best available science" for some decision by pointing to what they believe to be a better study; the EPA gets to argue why that study is not in fact better (or admits they overlooked it); then a judge decides whose definition of "better" is the better one; and a new piece of case law is added that future decisions can refer to.
    - Oletros 9y ago
      So, now the scientific studies have to be validated by courts? This is how science in the USA should work?
      - yorwba 9y ago
        No, this is how legal disputes should be resolved. The science can be done any way the scientists want to. The EPA can use any study that it believes to have sufficient quality. People who disagree can complain about it. The judicial system decides whose interpretation is correct.
        Oletros 9y ago
        What you're advocating is that science would be done by judicial branch, not by science. More so when the new EPA policy depends of a subjective matter and we know what the position of the new chief is.
        yorwba 9y ago
        I apparently have a different understanding of what "doing science" means. To me, it means performing experiments, taking measurements, testing theories etc. the result of which is usually some kind of scientific publication. I'm obviously not advocating that this kind of work be done by the judicial branch. So what am I imagining the judicial branch to do? Assume the new leadership of the EPA decides to introduce some new policy based on bogus cherry-picked studies that deny the reality of climate change. When people rightfully complain that this is not the "best available science", the case goes to a judge. The judge now has to decide whether or not the HONEST act was violated. To do that, since they are themselves not in a position to judge the science involved, they will likely have to rely on expert testimony. Given the overwhelming consensus in the scientific literature, a judge would have to be quite crooked indeed not to find that studies that completely fail to reflect this are not the "best available science". They should thus find in favor of environmentalists against the EPA. Am I too naive in imagining this outcome?

yorwba 9y ago

This seems to me like a perfectly reasonable step towards scientifically guided governance, so I don't get why this is framed as some kind of attack on the role of the EPA. I would in fact prefer if any government agency would only rely on "scientific and technical information" if it is "the best available science, specifically identified, and publicly available". No cherry-picking of your studies, no reliance on confidential research that can't be verified.

politician 9y ago
Hint: The loophole is in the word "best". Note how this is a 3 part test, yet one of the conditions is subjective.
- yorwba 9y ago
  That's what courts are for, isn't it? Someone claims that the EPA did not use the "best available science" for some decision by pointing to what they believe to be a better study; the EPA gets to argue why that study is not in fact better (or admits they overlooked it); then a judge decides whose definition of "better" is the better one; and a new piece of case law is added that future decisions can refer to.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    So, now the scientific studies have to be validated by courts? This is how science in the USA should work?
    - yorwba 9y ago
      No, this is how legal disputes should be resolved. The science can be done any way the scientists want to. The EPA can use any study that it believes to have sufficient quality. People who disagree can complain about it. The judicial system decides whose interpretation is correct.
      - Oletros 9y ago
        What you're advocating is that science would be done by judicial branch, not by science. More so when the new EPA policy depends of a subjective matter and we know what the position of the new chief is.
        yorwba 9y ago
        I apparently have a different understanding of what "doing science" means. To me, it means performing experiments, taking measurements, testing theories etc. the result of which is usually some kind of scientific publication. I'm obviously not advocating that this kind of work be done by the judicial branch. So what am I imagining the judicial branch to do? Assume the new leadership of the EPA decides to introduce some new policy based on bogus cherry-picked studies that deny the reality of climate change. When people rightfully complain that this is not the "best available science", the case goes to a judge. The judge now has to decide whether or not the HONEST act was violated. To do that, since they are themselves not in a position to judge the science involved, they will likely have to rely on expert testimony. Given the overwhelming consensus in the scientific literature, a judge would have to be quite crooked indeed not to find that studies that completely fail to reflect this are not the "best available science". They should thus find in favor of environmentalists against the EPA. Am I too naive in imagining this outcome?