7 ms·

EPA's proposed new rule would allow it to ignore the best available science

83 points by okket 8y ago

microcolonel 8y ago
Our health is at risk because the EPA is choosing not to take scientific publications at face value with not even the most basic way to check work? Have the authors of this article actually confirmed that this would include non-anonymized data unfit for public consumption? Added: The actual document does not specify "raw data", it is much more specific about what data they expect. > The proposed regulation provides that, for the science pivotal to its significant regulatory actions, EPA will ensure that the data and models underlying the science is publicly available in a manner sufficient for validation and analysis. "A manner sufficient for validation and analysis" is a completely different standard than "all the data the study produced".
fastbeef 8y ago
Am I the only one worried about the path the world is on? Fascism (or all-out nazism in Europe) on the rise, anti-intellectual and anti-press movements stirring, world leaders shunning science. It feels like we’re well on our way into a new dark age.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  Even if that's the case, which is not my impression, what does that have to do with this regulatory proposal?
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    >>... world leaders shunning science > what does that have to do with this regulatory proposal? Article's subtitle is: The agency’s proposed new rule would allow it to ignore the best available science
    - refurb 8y ago
      The best science available apparently needs to keep their raw data secret?
      - throwawayjava 8y ago
        Consider the following scenario. A chemical X is spilled in river. A sequence of very small towns with similar populations dot the river both up-stream down-stream. This is a dream setting for good science -- a true natural experiment with lots of genetic and environmental similarity between the groups in each small town, but radically different levels of exposure to X. Fast forward 10 years and researchers find that concentrations of X above some threshold N drastically increase the prevalence of birth defects. However, due to the size of the populations, researchers may not be able to publish their data and analysis publicly without de facto publishing almost complete de-anonymizable data. The scenario is not so hypothetical. The circumstances and particulars change, but this situation describes a lot of medical and environmental research. Should the EPA take the researcher's word? Maybe not. But there's a lot of workable middle ground in-between "blind trust" and "anyone with access to a library computer and a stats textbook can figure out participant 494 -- who math tells us can only possibly be Johnny D. of Smallsville, VA -- has testicular cancer". And the situation is even more difficult than this because de-anonymization is an active area of research with some surprisingly powerful results published in recent years; i.e., it is highly non-trivial to determine if a dataset is de-anonymizable. And the answer always depends on what data about a person's identity is publicly available, which especially in the age of annual massive data leaks change from year to year. So even if researchers don't think it's possible to de-anonymize study participants using today's mathematical tools and today's public datasets, they'll often choose to keep the dataset private just in case.
    - microcolonel 8y ago
      Is science good (or "the best!") if the available data are not sufficient to verify the analysis? This is not a "world leader" doing anything that could be described as "shunning science".
      - 8y ago
- jklinger410 8y ago
  >Am I the only one worried about the path the world is on? No. >It feels like we’re well on our way into a new dark age. Bill Gates would probably disagree with you on that (http://bit.ly/2mg08wL http://bit.ly/2mg08wL)
  - callalex 8y ago
    In the future please avoid using link shorteners (especially bit.ly). The links expire and tend to leave older forum threads full of frustrating link graveyards. In this case, the link points to https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Max-Roser-three-facts-everyone-should-know https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Max-Roser-three-facts...
- adventured 8y ago
  The world was approxiately 100 trillion times more bleak in the 1930s and 1940s. We weren't on our way to a new dark age then either. This is an extraordinary golden age by comparison. There are no world powers currently trying to kill each other, the biggest disputes are mostly between richer nations and about trade, and those disputes are trivial compared to the past. War is rare, famine is rare, food is relatively plentiful, as is global aid, vaccines, etc. Progress across nearly all fields of science and technology continues, rapidly so.
  - 24gttghh 8y ago
    Every category you purport to be causes for celebration are presently reversing themselves the world over due to ignorant, nationalist, neo-fascist governments like the one systematically dismantling the EPA discussed in the article.
  - fastbeef 8y ago
    Thank you, your words are very encouraging!
- mhneu 8y ago
  It's worrying. The groundwork was laid in the US starting in the 1970s. With the founding of Cato, Searle, Olin fnds. Murdoch bought the NY Post in 1976. Fairness doctrine was repealed in 1987 allowing Rush Limbaugh to go bigtime. Fox started in 1997.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Apparently conservative equals fascism to you. That’s unfortunate.
    - mhneu 8y ago
      Just the authoritarian “conservative” movement that seeks to concentrate power. I am actually a conservative on many issues, including UBI, work rules, tariffs, caution when making new law and regulations, and appropriate pricing of risk. However the real conservative movement has been redirected as a way to link wealthy donors’ interests with identity politics, for votes. Part and parcel of that is a huge propaganda machine which spouts lies. That propaganda is corrupting the West and I am afraid for its effect on democracy and average people.
jxramos 8y ago
searching the page for the word "rule" hits 13 occurrences. The only real "meat" if you can call it that surrounding what that rule is was this: Next week (July 17), EPA will hold its only public hearing on the proposed rule called “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science.” As far as I can see that's the only immediate information this article bothered to speak about the rule itself. Anybody see a summary on this rule to share with the crowd? Or did I miss something?
- microcolonel 8y ago
  It took me a while to find the actual document (which is actually about as much text as this article), which can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-0001 https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-0... Hope that helps.
- mhneu 8y ago
  From the article: EPA is proposing to eliminate consideration of scientific studies unless the raw study data are made publicly available — possibly including participants’ personal, confidential, and private information — data that may be subject to legal, ethical, and human subject research protections. This requirement would eliminate human health studies that use integral medical, lifestyle, and geographic data, as well as studies that include confidential business information, such as information from studies conducted by industry to demonstrate safety of a pesticide or other toxic chemical. It could also eliminate consideration of older studies for which data are no longer available or accessible, even if the data have been reanalyzed and the studies have been validated, replicated, reproduced, and undergone rigorous and independent peer review. Far from using the best available science for EPA decision-making, the proposal would severely limit the studies and scientific evidence the agency would use to fulfill is statutory mission to protect human health and the environment. This is not a new idea. It is the result of a decades-long campaign to undercut reliance on groundbreaking research...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - 8y ago
refurb 8y ago
This article seems really alarmist. It seems like the argument they are making is "raw data for some of the best science needs to be kept secret". Considering one of the tenants of the scientific method is reproducibility, how can you reproduce something if the raw data is unavailable?
- brohoolio 8y ago
  It’s alarmist because people will die because of this rule. If you get cancer because of a chemical spill do you want all of your personal information released to help prove that the chemicals spilled poisoned you? No. You want your personal data protected.
  - refurb 8y ago
    There is no requirement for personal data to be released. Plenty of environmental studies have been done with anonymized data. Sounds like a red herring to me.
    - rhcom2 8y ago
      Your confidentiality agreement with a study can preclude them from even releasing the anonymized raw data, invaliding a study in the eyes of the EPA. It also mandates reproducibility. It isn't exactly easy or even possible to reproduce a 70-year long study or a study of victims of a disaster which is the point of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and The American Academy of Pediatrics. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-2425 https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-2...
      - refurb 8y ago
        Reproducibility in science means enough information is disclosed, such that the data can be reproduced. It does not mean it has to be repeated to be believed. Reproducibility is a key part of the scientific method. I'm surprised people are so willing to toss it aside.
mhneu 8y ago
Is it really _Trump's_ EPA that is the problem? Or is the underlying problem the party that backs him and supplies EPA officials? https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/10/14871696/scott-pruitt-climate-denial https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/10/14871696/sc... Scott Pruitt denies basic climate science. But most of the outrage is missing the point. ... It’s not about Pruitt and it’s not about facts. (from 2017) [Complaints] are all about what Pruitt believes. And in the end, who cares what he believes? He is a functionary, chosen in part to dismantle EPA regulations on greenhouse gases. If it weren’t him, it would be some other functionary. The goal is to block or reverse any policy that would negatively affect [conservative] donors and supporters, who are drawn disproportionately from carbon-intensive industries and regions. That is the North Star — to protect those constituencies. That means, effectively, blocking any efficacious climate policy (which, almost by definition, will diminish fossil fuels)
jorblumesea 8y ago
It always stuns me that people still internalize the "both parties" arguments. One party in particular seems significantly more determined and certain to drag American living standards down.
all4refactor 8y ago
This is actually a good thing. Otherwise, you get laws such as "Coffee labels must have warning labels stating it might cause cancer" as California just passed because a "Scientist" mentioned that coffee might contain a carcinogen. There is no proof or verifiable data supporting it. Now the EPA cannot just ban or prohibit based off "might cause". There needs to be proof that anybody can verify.
mistrial9 8y ago
Have you technical geniuses figured out that lawyers can write restrictions in a way that sounds reasonable (to get them to pass) and then go on to enforce policy in quite a different way, much later ? Is it not obvious that 'environmental protection' costs money and may prevent some company from making more money ? The US EPA is a number-one target for decades, for these reasons. Many US lawyers are paid very, very well to represent the interests of their commercial employers, which likely does not include any consideration of actual long-term harm.
- refurb 8y ago
  So it sounds like you’re saying the new policy is reasonable but may be abused? If so I don’t disagree. I disagree with this article stating that raw data needs to be kept secret. It’s pure bullshit and anti-science.
- bobwaycott 8y ago
  > Is it not obvious that 'environmental protection' costs money and may prevent some company from making more money? I cannot tell from your tone and the jab at “technical geniuses” if you’re saying this is a bad thing. Yes, environmental protection costs money. This money should be paid by the companies who are directly or potentially placing the environment at risk. This burden should not be externalized onto the public so private entities can make more money.
- sitkack 8y ago
  Lawyers gaming the legal system or enabling their clients to cause long term harm could face the possibility of disbarment.
swebs 8y ago
Here is the actual document for anyone curious: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09078/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09... I think it sounds great. Reproducability and verifiability are extremely import in scientific research. Unlike what this article and some people here claim, it does make provisions for protecting the privacy of users. I also don't see anything hinting that it will affect past studies retroactively. My only complaint is that it targets the EPA specifically, which is pretty suspicious with the current political situation. It would be great if this affected all studies which receive public funding.
- pfranz 8y ago
  The burden seems to be flipped here. You can't release a medical product until you have reproducible and verifiable results proving your product is safe and effective. When it comes to the environment you can release something until it's proven that it's not safe and effective. They're increasing the burden under the nomenclature of science, when in reality it's a cost/benefit between a company's profits and the quality of life of everyone. I don't mean to sound anti-corprate, but environmental regulations only exist because companies externalize costs onto society and this increases the burden for balancing exposing that cost.

83 points by okket 8y ago

Our health is at risk because the EPA is choosing not to take scientific publications at face value with not even the most basic way to check work? Have the authors of this article actually confirmed that this would include non-anonymized data unfit for public consumption? Added: The actual document does not specify "raw data", it is much more specific about what data they expect. > The proposed regulation provides that, for the science pivotal to its significant regulatory actions, EPA will ensure that the data and models underlying the science is publicly available in a manner sufficient for validation and analysis. "A manner sufficient for validation and analysis" is a completely different standard than "all the data the study produced".

fastbeef 8y ago

Am I the only one worried about the path the world is on? Fascism (or all-out nazism in Europe) on the rise, anti-intellectual and anti-press movements stirring, world leaders shunning science. It feels like we’re well on our way into a new dark age.

microcolonel 8y ago
Even if that's the case, which is not my impression, what does that have to do with this regulatory proposal?
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  >>... world leaders shunning science > what does that have to do with this regulatory proposal? Article's subtitle is: The agency’s proposed new rule would allow it to ignore the best available science
  - refurb 8y ago
    The best science available apparently needs to keep their raw data secret?
    - throwawayjava 8y ago
      Consider the following scenario. A chemical X is spilled in river. A sequence of very small towns with similar populations dot the river both up-stream down-stream. This is a dream setting for good science -- a true natural experiment with lots of genetic and environmental similarity between the groups in each small town, but radically different levels of exposure to X. Fast forward 10 years and researchers find that concentrations of X above some threshold N drastically increase the prevalence of birth defects. However, due to the size of the populations, researchers may not be able to publish their data and analysis publicly without de facto publishing almost complete de-anonymizable data. The scenario is not so hypothetical. The circumstances and particulars change, but this situation describes a lot of medical and environmental research. Should the EPA take the researcher's word? Maybe not. But there's a lot of workable middle ground in-between "blind trust" and "anyone with access to a library computer and a stats textbook can figure out participant 494 -- who math tells us can only possibly be Johnny D. of Smallsville, VA -- has testicular cancer". And the situation is even more difficult than this because de-anonymization is an active area of research with some surprisingly powerful results published in recent years; i.e., it is highly non-trivial to determine if a dataset is de-anonymizable. And the answer always depends on what data about a person's identity is publicly available, which especially in the age of annual massive data leaks change from year to year. So even if researchers don't think it's possible to de-anonymize study participants using today's mathematical tools and today's public datasets, they'll often choose to keep the dataset private just in case.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    Is science good (or "the best!") if the available data are not sufficient to verify the analysis? This is not a "world leader" doing anything that could be described as "shunning science".
    - 8y ago
jklinger410 8y ago
>Am I the only one worried about the path the world is on? No. >It feels like we’re well on our way into a new dark age. Bill Gates would probably disagree with you on that (http://bit.ly/2mg08wL http://bit.ly/2mg08wL)
- callalex 8y ago
  In the future please avoid using link shorteners (especially bit.ly). The links expire and tend to leave older forum threads full of frustrating link graveyards. In this case, the link points to https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Max-Roser-three-facts-everyone-should-know https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Max-Roser-three-facts...
adventured 8y ago
The world was approxiately 100 trillion times more bleak in the 1930s and 1940s. We weren't on our way to a new dark age then either. This is an extraordinary golden age by comparison. There are no world powers currently trying to kill each other, the biggest disputes are mostly between richer nations and about trade, and those disputes are trivial compared to the past. War is rare, famine is rare, food is relatively plentiful, as is global aid, vaccines, etc. Progress across nearly all fields of science and technology continues, rapidly so.
- 24gttghh 8y ago
  Every category you purport to be causes for celebration are presently reversing themselves the world over due to ignorant, nationalist, neo-fascist governments like the one systematically dismantling the EPA discussed in the article.
- fastbeef 8y ago
  Thank you, your words are very encouraging!
mhneu 8y ago
It's worrying. The groundwork was laid in the US starting in the 1970s. With the founding of Cato, Searle, Olin fnds. Murdoch bought the NY Post in 1976. Fairness doctrine was repealed in 1987 allowing Rush Limbaugh to go bigtime. Fox started in 1997.
- refurb 8y ago
  Apparently conservative equals fascism to you. That’s unfortunate.
  - mhneu 8y ago
    Just the authoritarian “conservative” movement that seeks to concentrate power. I am actually a conservative on many issues, including UBI, work rules, tariffs, caution when making new law and regulations, and appropriate pricing of risk. However the real conservative movement has been redirected as a way to link wealthy donors’ interests with identity politics, for votes. Part and parcel of that is a huge propaganda machine which spouts lies. That propaganda is corrupting the West and I am afraid for its effect on democracy and average people.

jxramos 8y ago

searching the page for the word "rule" hits 13 occurrences. The only real "meat" if you can call it that surrounding what that rule is was this: Next week (July 17), EPA will hold its only public hearing on the proposed rule called “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science.” As far as I can see that's the only immediate information this article bothered to speak about the rule itself. Anybody see a summary on this rule to share with the crowd? Or did I miss something?

microcolonel 8y ago
It took me a while to find the actual document (which is actually about as much text as this article), which can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-0001 https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-0... Hope that helps.
mhneu 8y ago
From the article: EPA is proposing to eliminate consideration of scientific studies unless the raw study data are made publicly available — possibly including participants’ personal, confidential, and private information — data that may be subject to legal, ethical, and human subject research protections. This requirement would eliminate human health studies that use integral medical, lifestyle, and geographic data, as well as studies that include confidential business information, such as information from studies conducted by industry to demonstrate safety of a pesticide or other toxic chemical. It could also eliminate consideration of older studies for which data are no longer available or accessible, even if the data have been reanalyzed and the studies have been validated, replicated, reproduced, and undergone rigorous and independent peer review. Far from using the best available science for EPA decision-making, the proposal would severely limit the studies and scientific evidence the agency would use to fulfill is statutory mission to protect human health and the environment. This is not a new idea. It is the result of a decades-long campaign to undercut reliance on groundbreaking research...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- 8y ago

refurb 8y ago

This article seems really alarmist. It seems like the argument they are making is "raw data for some of the best science needs to be kept secret". Considering one of the tenants of the scientific method is reproducibility, how can you reproduce something if the raw data is unavailable?

brohoolio 8y ago
It’s alarmist because people will die because of this rule. If you get cancer because of a chemical spill do you want all of your personal information released to help prove that the chemicals spilled poisoned you? No. You want your personal data protected.
- refurb 8y ago
  There is no requirement for personal data to be released. Plenty of environmental studies have been done with anonymized data. Sounds like a red herring to me.
  - rhcom2 8y ago
    Your confidentiality agreement with a study can preclude them from even releasing the anonymized raw data, invaliding a study in the eyes of the EPA. It also mandates reproducibility. It isn't exactly easy or even possible to reproduce a 70-year long study or a study of victims of a disaster which is the point of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and The American Academy of Pediatrics. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-2425 https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-2...
    - refurb 8y ago
      Reproducibility in science means enough information is disclosed, such that the data can be reproduced. It does not mean it has to be repeated to be believed. Reproducibility is a key part of the scientific method. I'm surprised people are so willing to toss it aside.

mhneu 8y ago

Is it really _Trump's_ EPA that is the problem? Or is the underlying problem the party that backs him and supplies EPA officials? https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/10/14871696/scott-pruitt-climate-denial https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/10/14871696/sc... Scott Pruitt denies basic climate science. But most of the outrage is missing the point. ... It’s not about Pruitt and it’s not about facts. (from 2017) [Complaints] are all about what Pruitt believes. And in the end, who cares what he believes? He is a functionary, chosen in part to dismantle EPA regulations on greenhouse gases. If it weren’t him, it would be some other functionary. The goal is to block or reverse any policy that would negatively affect [conservative] donors and supporters, who are drawn disproportionately from carbon-intensive industries and regions. That is the North Star — to protect those constituencies. That means, effectively, blocking any efficacious climate policy (which, almost by definition, will diminish fossil fuels)

jorblumesea 8y ago

It always stuns me that people still internalize the "both parties" arguments. One party in particular seems significantly more determined and certain to drag American living standards down.

all4refactor 8y ago

This is actually a good thing. Otherwise, you get laws such as "Coffee labels must have warning labels stating it might cause cancer" as California just passed because a "Scientist" mentioned that coffee might contain a carcinogen. There is no proof or verifiable data supporting it. Now the EPA cannot just ban or prohibit based off "might cause". There needs to be proof that anybody can verify.

mistrial9 8y ago

Have you technical geniuses figured out that lawyers can write restrictions in a way that sounds reasonable (to get them to pass) and then go on to enforce policy in quite a different way, much later ? Is it not obvious that 'environmental protection' costs money and may prevent some company from making more money ? The US EPA is a number-one target for decades, for these reasons. Many US lawyers are paid very, very well to represent the interests of their commercial employers, which likely does not include any consideration of actual long-term harm.

refurb 8y ago
So it sounds like you’re saying the new policy is reasonable but may be abused? If so I don’t disagree. I disagree with this article stating that raw data needs to be kept secret. It’s pure bullshit and anti-science.
bobwaycott 8y ago
> Is it not obvious that 'environmental protection' costs money and may prevent some company from making more money? I cannot tell from your tone and the jab at “technical geniuses” if you’re saying this is a bad thing. Yes, environmental protection costs money. This money should be paid by the companies who are directly or potentially placing the environment at risk. This burden should not be externalized onto the public so private entities can make more money.
sitkack 8y ago
Lawyers gaming the legal system or enabling their clients to cause long term harm could face the possibility of disbarment.

swebs 8y ago

Here is the actual document for anyone curious: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09078/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09... I think it sounds great. Reproducability and verifiability are extremely import in scientific research. Unlike what this article and some people here claim, it does make provisions for protecting the privacy of users. I also don't see anything hinting that it will affect past studies retroactively. My only complaint is that it targets the EPA specifically, which is pretty suspicious with the current political situation. It would be great if this affected all studies which receive public funding.

pfranz 8y ago
The burden seems to be flipped here. You can't release a medical product until you have reproducible and verifiable results proving your product is safe and effective. When it comes to the environment you can release something until it's proven that it's not safe and effective. They're increasing the burden under the nomenclature of science, when in reality it's a cost/benefit between a company's profits and the quality of life of everyone. I don't mean to sound anti-corprate, but environmental regulations only exist because companies externalize costs onto society and this increases the burden for balancing exposing that cost.