Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government United States Science

White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills 517

sciencehabit writes The U.S. House of Representatives could vote as early as this week to approve two controversial, Republican-backed bills that would change how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses science and scientific advice to inform its policies. Many Democrats, scientific organizations, and environmental groups are pushing back, calling the bills thinly veiled attempts to weaken future regulations and favor industry. White House advisers announced that they will recommend that President Barack Obama veto the bills if they reach his desk in their current form.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Comments Filter:
  • by ZorinLynx ( 31751 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @07:11PM (#49184799) Homepage

    It makes me wonder if they're bringing out these stupid bills because they want to appease voters but know there's no chance of them actually passing because of white house veto.

    Think about it; this is a wonderful time for the Republicans to create all kinds of crazy ridiculous stuff that appeases voters but that the politicians know is harmful, realizing that none of it will pass and that they'll get re-elected by their crazy base because "at least they tried."

    Hmmmm!

    • Hmmmm! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by duck_rifted ( 3480715 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @07:16PM (#49184831)
      What a genius political strategy when there's not a presidential election next year!

      While they're busy sucking up to low-information voters who have a non-specific axe to grind, they're also alienating the support they'll need to not lose the White House for the third time in a row for the first time since the 1940's. I get the feeling they think that because it hasn't happened in so long, they're protected by some kind of voodoo fairy magic and pixie dust that will keep it from happening. But that would be par for the course for the party of "science am fake".
    • by Stormy Dragon ( 800799 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @07:17PM (#49184839)

      What's weird about making the data from scientific studies publically available? Frankly, I think the data from all government funded research should be public domain.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Rockoon ( 1252108 )
        From the article:

        "The bills, introduced by a mostly Republican cast of sponsors in both the House and the Senate, would require that EPA use only publicly available, reproducible data in writing regulations and seek to remake the membership and procedures of the agency’s science advisory panels."

        The president plans to veto common sense.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I'm sorry, I still don't see how that's a bad thing. What's wrong with requiring some level of scientific rigor in something before making public policy on the results? Now, remaking the membership and procedures of the agency portion, that's rather vague and more info needed, too lazy to look it up.

          • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Thursday March 05, 2015 @04:11AM (#49187029) Journal

            Because it leaves all sorts of loopholes.

            There is no scientific literature on how nasty fracking fluid is (blatantly not just inert chemicals) because the companies using it refuse to disclose what's in it.

            With this bill, it would be impossible to regulate because there's no information about it. Depending on how the bill is written it would be impossible to even require information about it because that too would require "scientific studies" and I'll bet there's not a lot of papers out there with platitudes like "things we have no idea at all about may possibly not be good".

            Make no mistake, this is not done with good intentions, it is a bill intended to neuter the EPA in order to benefit lage corporations. It's been given a sheen of science to make it seem reasonable, but it is almost certainly not designed for the purpose of making the government more scientific.

            • by erikkemperman ( 252014 ) on Thursday March 05, 2015 @04:29AM (#49187095)

              This.

              Requiring EPA to use publicly available data sound reasonable enough until you realize that many of these same (mostly GOP) people have no problem with (often times heavily subsidized) companies refusing to share data.

              Like the fracking example parent mentioned; nobody is able to research their methods and the compounds used, because trade secrets. Something similar happened with GM crops, which have been widely planted for over a decade before the scientific community at large were able/allowed to research them.

              "Seeking to remake the membership and procedures" is just code for subverting, eroding, EPA until it is a hollow shell of what it was intended to be.

        • by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @07:33PM (#49184957)
          The obvious target is to tie up all EPA regulations until courts have confirmed the reproducibility of the data used to base the decision on. It will fall to the EPA to prove their data is reproducible by someone who wishes to not reproduce it. Everything else would be illegal.
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Bartles ( 1198017 )
            It's a shame when the EPA's own strategy gets used against it.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            The obvious target is to tie up all EPA regulations until courts have confirmed the reproducibility of the data used to base the decision on. It will fall to the EPA to prove their data is reproducible by someone who wishes to not reproduce it. Everything else would be illegal.

            The language of the bill is very clear. It is intended to do what it says: make sure our regulatory bodies (employees of The People) are making their decisions based on publicly available, sound science.

            Why should they be able to keep their "science" secret, as they have? That's obviously a non-starter. Especially when they're attempting to shove the most expensive regulations in history off on the public.

            • EPA's work has always been based on publically available rigorous science. the repubs are just raising an issue to squeeze in something else.

        • by fightinfilipino ( 1449273 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @07:33PM (#49184967) Homepage

          the devil is in the details:

          The secret science bill, for example, would apparently bar EPA from using public health studies based on confidential patient information, wrote the American Statistical Association’s president, David Morganstein, in a 25 February letter to lawmakers. That would force the agency into “a choice between maintaining data confidentiality and issuing needed regulations,” he wrote. Also, efforts to deidentify sensitive data before release—by stripping names and other information—aren’t fail-safe, Morganstein wrote.

          Democrats are further concerned about another provision, not included in earlier versions, that would give EPA only $1 million per year to implement the bill, which would entail, among other things, obtaining raw data from study authors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that the bill would cost $250 million annually to implement early on, and that’s only if EPA were to halve the number of studies it used to 25,000 annually, said Representative Donna Edwards (D–MD)

          this bill is not even remotely about "transparency." it's about hamstringing the EPA.

        • by pesho ( 843750 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @11:24PM (#49186095)
          How about you read the entire article and not quote selectively. One major issue is the raw data from clinical studies. In these studies the data identifying the patients is protected to preserve the privacy. The reason for this is that publishing data that identifies the subjects of the study will deter participation, particularly from people with severe conditions. This will ultimately bias the results and will make the studies irrelevant. There is also the existing legislation protecting the patient privacy which prohibits publishing personally identifiable information without explicit consent from the patients. The law that is being proposed will make it impossible to use epidemiological data from medical records. It is pretty obvious that the goal of this legislature is not to enforce "common sense". The goal is to make EPA powerless by preventing it from backing its decisions with real data. The most telling part is that the legislature will quote: "bar academic scientists on the panels from talking about matters related to research they’re doing." WTF? How is EPA supposed to make decisions? By ignoring the advice of scientist who work on the matter and taking advice from people who are completely clueless?
      • by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @07:33PM (#49184959)

        What's weird about making the data from scientific studies publically available? Frankly, I think the data from all government funded research should be public domain.

        From the full article, the law as written, would bar the EPA from using any studies involving confidential patient information unless they were made public.

        The (Republican) backers response? Apparently they think participants/Patients should sign a waiver agreeing that the raw study data might be made public, or they can simply choose not to participate in the study.

        Frankly, I'm disgusted.

        The result is clear: very few, if any, studies would be available to the EPA to use as a basis to set policy.

        The idea of transparent science is good. But this is clearly an attempt to strip the EPA of any ability to actually do science or regulate based on science.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          From the full article, the law as written, would bar the EPA from using any studies involving confidential patient information unless they were made public.

          This is really reaching, by anybody's standards. I read the article, and Morganstein's letter.

          The language of the bill calls for "publicly available science". It does not say that the subjects of any studies cannot be kept confidential. That's just malarkey.

          As I wrote above: such studies or surveys, by their very nature, are presumed to be repeatable. The idea is that anyone else who conducted such a study, with a similar but separate sample of individuals, would come up with the same results. After a

          • by vux984 ( 928602 )

            If I propose we serve beef burgers, and a vegetarian selection at a picnic and someone says, hey that sounds like maybe your suggesting we serve vegetarian PEOPLE as food?!!!

            Would I say... "Not to worry, vegetarians may choose to opt-out of eating or being eaten."

            Or... would I say? Are you nuts? I obviously didn't mean it that way. Fine, whatever... "I propose we serve beef hot dogs and a green salad"? We good?.. Lets move on.

            If its a reaching non-issue Why would the backers of the bill suggest study partic

            • by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @09:08PM (#49185469)

              If its a reaching non-issue Why would the backers of the bill suggest study participants can sign waivers or opt out? Why aren't they just fixing the bill to exclude that interpretation?

              That isn't in the bill itself. That's what one person said in response to Morganstein's stated opinion about the bill.

              The law is not subject either to Morganstein's interpretation, or what a single Representative said about it. That idea has been solidly settled by the Supreme Court.

              400-year-old Common Law, still in effect in this country, says that the meaning of the law rests on one thing: what a reasonable person would conclude Congress intended when passing the law. That's why, for example, they have debates about bills in Congress.

              I hardly think a reasonable person would conclude that study subjects could not be anonymous. That's an extreme interpretation, not a reasonable one.

              And also as I stated up above: that's why the Court challenge to Obamacare is not about "4 words". It's about what Congress intended when passing the bill. There is A LOT more evidence of Congress' actual intent than just those 4 words.

        • If it's not transparent and reproducible, it's not a proposal based on science, but authority. It holds as much weight as a statement by the Flying Spagetti Monster.

          If you want a faith based approach to law making, just be forthright about it. It's not like you're alone. But, please don't denigrate the scientific process by claiming that's not what's happening. People are thick enough already...

          • by vux984 ( 928602 )

            If it's not transparent and reproducible, it's not a proposal based on science, but authority. It holds as much weight as a statement by the Flying Spagetti Monster.

            One can (and should) post the methodology and results without revealing confidential patient health information, sufficient that another group could reproduce the study.

            You do not need to know the names of the participants, and have access to their medical records to reproduce the study. Find your own patients and reproduce the published methodology to lend weight or cast doubt on the original study.

            That's how medical research should be done.

            If you want a faith based approach to law making...

            Time for your meds.

            • Sorry, you don't get to redefine science as "Something a scientist told me."

              There is no shortage of people willing to make statements in the authoritative tone, and the stupid and undisciplined accept that as a way to avoid that uncomfortable feeling of uncertainty. I'm not among them, are you?

          • by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @09:56PM (#49185633)

            If you want a faith based approach to law making, just be forthright about it.

            One of the sponsors of the Secret Science Reform Act was Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia. Here's what he's had to say on that topic: [youtube.com]

            God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a Savior. There's a lot of scientific data that I found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I believe that the Earth is about 9,000 years old. I believe that it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says. And what I've come to learn is that it's the manufacturer's handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually. How to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society. And that's the reason, as your congressman, I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I'll continue to do that.

            He does want a "faith based approach to law making", but at least he's been "forthright about it".

      • by youngone ( 975102 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @07:33PM (#49184961)
        Public Domain's not the issue here, when the American Statistical Society opposes this bill, there must be some serious problem somewhere.
      • by Dorianny ( 1847922 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @07:52PM (#49185081) Journal
        In this article from 2009 our-secrets-live-online-in-databases-of-ruin [arstechnica.com], researchers were able to identify %87 of Americans with just 3 piece of information: zip code, birthdate and sex. With the mountains of personal data both publicly accessible and in private databases and with what are essentially clearing-houses especially designed to aggregate this data, identifying people in anonymized data is almost trivial unless that data is so heavily sanitized as to be useless to research and in effect fail the "reproducible" requirement of the law.
        • Intresting that they chose birthdate instead of age, don't you think? Why do you supppose they did that? Have you seen medical research that relied upon birthdate as a key component of the data rather than age?

          Their method is sly, but the intent is obvious, and dishonest.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        In many fields, it is the case that data ultimately becomes available to the public. For example, in astronomy, the principle investigators are given a time frame for exclusive access to the data, but it ultimately is made available for download.

        The issue here is that there are cases where you shouldn't make the data publicly available (public health studies, for example) because it isn't always possible to anonymize public health data (even when names, etc. are stripped). As a result, we need to limit a

      • by riverat1 ( 1048260 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @08:59PM (#49185431)

        What's weird about making the data from scientific studies publically available? Frankly, I think the data from all government funded research should be public domain.

        This whole flap arose over some studies from Harvard medical school where the population being studied were told their identity would be protected. Some Republican Congressmen when holding a hearing about proposed EPA regulations based on the study asked for specific information that could lead to the identification of individual participants and the researchers refused to provide it. Apparently the collective statistics provided by the study were not good enough for them.

        So what's more important, the desires of Congress or the privacy of the individuals who participated in the study?

      • What's weird about making the data from scientific studies publically available? Frankly, I think the data from all government funded research should be public domain.

        That would outlaw double-blind studies.

      • by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @09:23PM (#49185527)
        Following is the relevant text of the actual bill:

        =======
        The Administrator shall not propose, finalize,
        or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and
        technical information relied on to support such covered ac-
        tion is--
        (A) specifically identified; and
        (B) publicly available online in a manner that
        is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial
        reproduction of research results.
        (2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as
        requiring the public dissemination of information the dis-
        closure of which is prohibited by law.

        =======

        It does not say personal or medical details. It says "sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction".

        There is NOTHING sinister or unreasonable about this, except apparently in the imagination of alarmists.
    • Where are all the stories about those "obstructionist Democrats" and "the party of No" that we should be seeing by now, I wonder? I mean, with all of the vetos and "walking out" on foreign dignitaries we should be seeing these headlines regularly, shouldn't we?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @07:25PM (#49184905)

    Can't have the masses getting their info right from the source.

    • Baby steps, my good coward...

      still efforting the 40% threshold for RTFS.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @08:02PM (#49185147)

      > Don't link to the bills or anything

      RTFA, the links are right there.
      http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20150302/CPRT-114-HPRT-RU00-HR1030.pdf
      http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20150302/CPRT-114-HPRT-RU00-HR1029.pdf

      It is amazing that at least 3 people found it easier to mod you up than to skim the article.
      It took me less than 30 seconds to pick those links out of the text.

  • ""would require that EPA use only publicly available, reproducible data in writing regulations and seek to remake the membership and procedures of the agencyâ(TM)s science advisory panels.""

    Explain to me why that is bad? First, unreproducable science isn't science. So requiring that the science be reproducable is requiring that it actually be science. As to the information being publicly avalidable, it can't be peer reviewed unless it can be reviewed by peers.

    Here someone will say "but we had some secr

  • by See Attached ( 1269764 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @08:32PM (#49185295)
    We are blessed with a fair amount of light-duty science shows on TV... but... it seems to be financed by non scientists. Why is Nova paid for by the Koch Brothers ( http://www.cpb.org/ombudsman/d... [cpb.org] )? Seems David and Charles are all for pushing the populace to see just enough science to not want to dig further. To displace science provided by scientists. I want to see Science TV shows that make me want to learn more about the topics ... to understand and even participate in the process of adapting / adopting. Why not feel part of science and not subject to it? How about science that seeks to inform. Rather than fascination with Mars, how about how pollution affects the living world around us... how ocean currents work, how to integrate my home, How to wire up a Raspberry Pi to do myriad things, what life forms am I made of? There is enough science to go around. Lets light our kids' imaginations!! Lets have some science with a capital S!
  • Reproducable? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @08:45PM (#49185357)
    Here is how that will work:

    EPA: We have never seen the like of your flagrant disregard for all regulation, you are single handedly responsible for massive amounts of pollution. We have documentation of your polluting over the last 5 years.

    Evil Corporation: Yes well now that we are done with our drilling projects could you reproduce those measurements just to be sure?

    EPA: we had highly sensitive instruments, your pollution was beyond obvious - just look at the corpses!

    Evil Corporation: So you can't reproduce the data?

    EPA: how are we supposed to do that? Use a time machine?

    Evil Corporation: well if that's all you got we are done here. Off to expand our corporate rights beyond mere citizenship.
  • by KermodeBear ( 738243 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2015 @09:33PM (#49185561) Homepage

    Why should only the EPA have to base policy only on publicly available, reproducible studies?

    Any government agency that is making science-based, public policy decisions should only be using data that I am also allowed to access. I am sick of the government doing so much in secret, behind closed doors, where I am not allowed to see what is happening.

    There have been some concerns raised elsewhere in the comments, and I don't think any of them cannot be addressed by some changes to the legislation. This could end up being a very good piece of legislation from the standpoint of government transparency and accountability.

  • by silentcoder ( 1241496 ) on Thursday March 05, 2015 @05:00AM (#49187185)

    Of republicans declaring that science isn't science if it's "secret" and this makes the bills good because they haven't actually read the article and has no idea what "secret" MEANS in this context.

  • by sirwired ( 27582 ) on Thursday March 05, 2015 @07:20AM (#49187605)

    The proverbial Devil is in the Details. While the main public "idea" behind the bills makes sense, the bills contain provisions that make them, in effect, EPA-killers.

    The "Public Data" bill contains a provision only giving the EPA $1M per year to make the data public, which is not nearly enough money to do the job. It would essentially stop the EPA in it's tracks, unable to make policy. (Which is likely the true intent of the bill.)

    The other bill bars academics from even discussing research they are performing if it hasn't yet been published. (But I'll bet that provision doesn't apply to industry members.) It also requires panels to respond to ALL public comments on their work. In practice, this means their work would never complete. No other regulatory agency has such a restriction.

CChheecckk yyoouurr dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh..

Working...