A new version of an EPA proposal, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science, will significantly curtail the research that the agency considers when making policy. The EPA plans to require the disclosure of all raw data, including private and confidential information, by scientists before considering a study for use. The EPA’s rule errs in that it will automatically disqualify mountains of sound, peer-reviewed data gathered under confidentiality agreements.
As a result, the new rule would toss out science that forms the basis of many clean air and clean water provisions and could apply retroactively to preexisting regulations. The EPA is thwarting an evidence-based approach to policy. And it will subject the use of scientific studies to the discretion of the agency administrator, who is a political appointee. That is to say, an individual with an overtly political job should not oversee the body of evidence that underpins environmental regulations in the United States.
The EPA’s departure from data-driven science is incompatible with the agency’s history and mission. On its “Milestones in U.S. EPA and Environmental History” page, the first event is the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, a hallmark of the modern environmental movement. In it, Carson carefully detailed the harms of DDT — how it moved through the food web, how it lingered in the biological tissue of animals and humans, how it caused cancer, and how it damaged our genetic material.
Carson’s work rose to national fame because of its controversy, but it withstood harsh skepticism because of its science. Data, case studies, experts, research at places like the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute, and 55 pages of notes and references formed Carson’s indisputable case against pesticides. The EPA’s about-face stands in stark contrast to Carson’s legacy.
If the EPA adopts this rule, it will effectively bar the use of large-scale medical studies when regulating air pollution, toxic chemicals, and water contaminants. The EPA pits scientists between, on the one hand, facing criminal prosecution if they disclose confidential information from their studies or, on the other, facing total exclusion from EPA consideration.
Transparency is an important facet in evaluating the quality of scientific research and analysis. But the EPA’s proposed transparency measures are extreme, far exceeding those of academic journals like Nature, Cell, PLOS One, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. These journals recognize that “in not every case can all data be fully shared,” and academics routinely protect private data when submitting studies for review or publication.
When this proposal was initially unveiled in 2018, it drew criticism from a coalition of nearly 70 professional and public health groups, including the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association.
In particular, this proposal could undo standards for particulate matter, which are small particles suspended in the air that can cause lung cancer and asthma attacks, among other adverse health outcomes. The underlying report used to justify these regulations, the Harvard “Six Cities” study, tracked 22,000 people and ultimately linked air pollution to early deaths. But its data cannot be made public, as it contains sensitive medical and employment history. And even though the findings have been checked and replicated, the study’s withholding of confidential information might be a problem if the EPA puts the new transparency rule in place.
The EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment. But its proposal ensures that vast swaths of public health data would not be consulted when making public health decisions. The rule undercuts the agency’s role as a steward of our environment and will erode public trust in government. It is for these reasons that the EPA must nix its proposed transparency rule.