Joint Letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler re Regulatory Science Proposal. CPR joins in comments from 77 organizations calling on Wheeler to withdraw a proposal from his predecessor, Scott Pruitt, that would distort the science used in the agency's rulemaking, August 15, 2018.
Rena Steinzor's April 30, 2009, testimony before the House Science and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight on clean science and regulatory issues.
Letter to the Administrative Conference of the United States on science in the administrative process. "In particular, we are interested in the recommendations related to the role of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [and its] ...failure to follow the transparency requirements of Executive Order 12,866 and its interference in matters that involve expert scientific judgment.
What do we know about the possible poisons that industrial technologies leave in our air and water? How reliable is the science that federal regulators and legislators use to protect the public from dangerous products? Drawing together a host of little-known but dramatic cases, Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research, by CPR Member Scholars Thomas O. McGarity and Wendy Wagner, comprehensively documents what has been suspected for years: how extensively scientific data are misused and abused in regulatory and tort law. Sound science is critical to the public policy process, particularly where health and safety issues are concerned. But as Professors McGarity and Wagner show, many interest groups do all they can to influence and undermine independent and honest research, in an effort to bend science to their ideological will.
Published in July 2006, Rescuing Science from Politics debuted chapters by the nation's leading academics in law, science, and philosophy who explore ways that the law can be abused by special interests to intrude on the way scientists conduct research. The book begins by establishing non-controversial principles of good scientific practice. These principles then serve as the benchmark against which each chapter author compares how science is misused in a specific regulatory setting and assist in isolating problems in the integration of science by the regulatory process.
For all the lip service paid to the notion that science has definitive answers, the moment that a group of scientists announce a discovery that has significant economic implications for industry or some other affected group, scientists in the spotlight soon learn that attacks are to be expected. Beset by scientific misconduct allegations or threatened with breach-of-contract lawsuits if research is published over a private sponsor's objections, growing numbers of scientists find themselves struggling to maintain their credibility in a climate designed to deconstruct the smallest details of their research. So severe are these problems in some settings that the most reputable scientists warn that legally-based harassment could deter the best and the brightest young scientists from entering the very disciplines that have the greatest potential to inform public affairs. Read Rena Steinzor and Wendy Wagner's entry in the CPR Perspectives series.
Writing for The Regulatory Review, Rena Steinzor and Wendy Wagner observe that "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt recently opened another front in his battle to redirect the agency away from its mission to protect human health and the environment. This time, he cobbled together a proposed rule that would drastically change how science is considered during the regulatory process."
"No matter how many times the word, 'transparency,' is repeated to characterize" a Trump administration proposal on the use of science in regulation, "its effects would reverse progress," write Rena Steinzor and Wedny Wagner on The Regulatory Review's pages.
With the calendar running out of pages on Donald Trump's first term, EPA is pushing hard to adopt its "benefits-busting" rule, hoping to defeat efforts to implement the Clear Air Act's protections by tilting the cost-benefit analysis process ever more to industry's favor. James Goodwin offers an analysis of the effort.
CPR's Rena Steinzor, writing in The Regulatory Review, takes on conservatives' conspiracy-mongering around the so-called "Deep State." She writes: "No matter when President Trump walks out the door, his Administration has caused irreparable injury. Civil servants are demoralized. The civil service does not look like a promising career path for young scientists or other professionals who interpret, translate into policy, or defend scientists’ work. Unless leaders in politics, science, economics, law, and other relevant professions declare a cease fire, the damage could be with us for more than a generation."