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.
Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress lately.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Democrats have anti-science blind spots too, such as the folks who think GMO crops are harmful simply because they aren't "natural." or some BS (as opposed to the less unreasonable arguments that GMO crops are harmful because they're designed to produce pesticides, or that they might out-compete non-GMO things and reduce biological diversity or something).
Of course, I'm not sure that the Democratic nut
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thing is, the population overall is becoming progressively smarter. Thanks to social networks, it's easy now to see that people who consistently support the GOP are also the ones to make bigoted statements, assertions easily proven false with less than
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they are alienating hispanics and all other new americans with their immigration stances. these people are productive, progressively richer, they care and they vote
G.O.P is on a steady decline unless they unhitch their horse from old dumb angry white people
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
G.O.P is on a steady decline...
Really? Did you count the votes from last November? Or is this some wishful thinking on your part?
Re:Hmmmm! (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. 11% of the country voted for the republicans last election, versus ~10% for democrats, in an election with one of the lowest turnouts on record.
Even for an off year it was a low turnout.
That's hardly indicative of a strong mandate or strong base.
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
"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)
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.
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Informative)
You mean the compounds so secret that there's a wikipedia page listing them all?
First, there is no reason to believe that list is exhaustive. According to the page itself, it is "a partial list of the chemical constituents in additives that are used or have been used in fracturing operations." It was only released in 2011 in response to a congressional investigation, having been held secret for 60 years. Nor does it help you know whether fracking fluid is mostly toluene or mostly liquid nitrogen (personally, my guess is that there is very little, if any, liquid nitrogen in fracking fluids, but it's on the list)
Second, from a random sampling of MSDS:
So, under the proposed legislation, even if you know what the chemicals are, you have to wait for someone to get interested enough in them to perform ecological, carcinogenic, and mutagenic studies with those specific chemicals and publishes the results. Until someone proves that a compound is carcinogenic, it would be regulated like it is not carcinogenic.
Perhaps you are willing to have your dinner grown next to a factory that can hold its chemical waste secret for 60 years, and then be unable to regulate that waste for another few years or decades, waiting for someone to bother to measure their health effects. Maybe you believe that no company would knowingly or accidentally release chemicals without clear confidence in their non-toxicity (even if they can't release that data to the public). Maybe you trust those companies, more than the politicized EPA, to balance their profits against potential harm to humans and environment.
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Informative)
That's quite simply not true.
It quite simply is true.
Read: http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]
http://www.newsweek.com/theres... [newsweek.com]
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
EPA's work has always been based on publically available rigorous science. the repubs are just raising an issue to squeeze in something else.
Re: (Score:3)
You have more faith in government than I do. I read the bill as regulating a regulator to make it more expensive and harder to do anything.
The EPA is part of the government. If you have little faith in the government, why would you want it to be easy for them to act using unpreproducible or other bad science? It is easy for EPA to have a huge negative impact on society and any industry it involves itself in. Surely you don't believe that all of government is filled with bad actors with the one incredible exception of EPA, staffed by only angels and sages instead of political apointees and bureaucrats?
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Insightful)
EPA would pass a regulation, repubs would sue saying it's not reproducable and here is contracitory evidence, then there would be 8 years of sutis and appeals where EPA would have to show reporoducability at each step. repubs are just introducing a stall tactic they can use later.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No.. The EPA would propose a regulation and during the required comment period, people could examine the science and the data used and attempt to reproduce it. If they find fault during the regulation process (the EPA cannot just declare regulation, it has to propose it, wait for a comment period, address any concerns brought up, comment, then vote to pass it). But anyone can reproduce the science if it is sound. You will have people in favor of the regulation reproducing it, you will have universities doin
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Insightful)
But anyone can reproduce the science if it is sound.
And what will be the benchmark for that? If the thing in question is the result of a ten-year study, will it include redoing ten years of measurements? Just because a result is reproducible in itself doesn't mean it will be reproduced quickly.
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets not be silly just to push a narritive. You will come up with a completely different data set if you spend ten years recollecting data.
What I had in mind is what silly conditions will be pushed by people in power who don't like the conclusions of some studies.
How much of the global warming debate would exist today if everything was open at the time instead of refusals to disclose data and so on
At what time? What refusals? What are you talking about? Arrhenius predicted global warming in 1896! Publically, of course. You're saying that somebody has been hiding some data for a century?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that "Due Process" is inconvenient?
The EPA should be subject to due process. If they're saying they're doing something because of a study... then that study itself should be subject to examination... that includes whether it is reprroducable and therefore science at all... and then you're going to want to know where the information came from so you can audit it.
You're holding the EPA to a lower standard then a corporation that files its yearly tax return.
You're being cousined. It is
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is that "Due Process" is inconvenient?
The EPA should be subject to due process. If they're saying they're doing something because of a study... then that study itself should be subject to examination... that includes whether it is reprroducable and therefore science at all... and then you're going to want to know where the information came from so you can audit it...
No. He's saying that it's impossible to review PUBLICLY what is held PRIVATELY. "Trade Secrets" is the corporate equivalent of "National Security". In addition, corporate snow-jobbing of the public has been going on for decades, and is already quite effective at stalling actions. Remember leaded gasoline? Asbestos? Acid rain? The measures here make it even easier to use those same tactics to effectively neuter or stop regulation entirely.
You can't take crap like this at face value. You have to read it like
Re: (Score:3)
As to the standards, absolutely. Any science used to back up a war should be reproducible. Whether it is disclosed or not in that case is a little more suspect because you're talking about war. Wars are won and lost often on secrets. So for example, I would be in favor secrets being kept when those secrets could save lives.
However, science that is not reproducible is not science.
You think you're being clever by conflating very different things together... military intelligence versus a scientific study.
The
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Insightful)
Every major science group in the country has opposed this bill, all the scientists oppose it.
Considering that they all love and live the scientific method, if this law was what it says it is, they would be supporting it.
You should reconsider judging a law by what republicans claim it does.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So the EPA should be able to make rules and then say," Because...this". What is this? No one knows.
Making rules, regulations and public police is serious business and should be done open and above board.If you want to restrict or prohibit something, you should have real science, available science to back it up. All this garbage about privacy is just that. Scientific studies are done all the time protecting the patient's info and is perfectly acceptable science.
I think they don't want to be forced to show th
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Insightful)
look at it this way... if the repubs are pushing a bill, then it must be for a nefarious purpose even if it seems logical on its face. once you realize this and start looking at people's motivations, you'll understand. follow the money!
Re: (Score:3)
The bill requires it be "reproducible" but doesn't define that term, so at least one court case will be necessary to define it.
All the court cases will be by polluters, wishing to continue their polluting ways, claiming that it's a matter of "freedom" to poison your air and water.
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Insightful)
All of these requirements add up effectively to denial of service attacks on regulation. They don't have to contest a proposed regulation on its own merits, they could just repeatedly contest the research backing it. Even if published research checks all the boxes they're demanding, they can grind it to a halt by forcing everyone involved to verify the case. And if something doesn't meet the requirements even if it doesn't substantially impact the validity of the research, that's a probably needed regulation that will take much longer to implement, even if it never gets past that stage. There will also likely be a metric ton of industry-generated "everything's fine, nothing to see here" "research" that does fit that opponents will demand to be considered.
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Insightful)
So, is it malice or stupidity that gives us this catch 22 that makes all effective regulation illegal, and only ineffective regulation could be legal? I vote malice.
Re: (Score:3)
You provide the raw data collected by whatever means, plus the methods used to take that raw data and translate it to a temperature measurement. Very straightforward. You provide the raw data without any adjustment or hedging, so that the raw data is accurate and as complete as you can make it. You then explain very carefully any assumptions you have made about your transformations, without any handwaving or "here a miracle occurs" or "I just know that this means that."
Subject privacy? The first step in
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you not see the stupid lawsuits brought by fringe environmentalists that greatly drive up the cost of much economic activity for little or no benefit? Have you not seen stupid government regulations that either prohibit various activities or greatly drive up the cost of various economic activities for little or no benefit, or even create actual harm? Surely you can't believe that ALL rules are good rules that must be imposed according to the whims, agendas, or mistakes of bureaucrats and political ap
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Insightful)
the devil is in the details:
Yes, such as the 50,000 studies they "use" annually. Thats 137 studies 'used" per day. I guess common sense doesnt figure into your view of things sine you quoted the part where this is detailed, but failed to notice how ridiculous this is.
The EPA employs 16,000 people full-time and contracts out work to many more, so that is 3 studies per employee per year. I fail to notice anything ridiculous about the number.
Do tell us, what is the "right" number of studies?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
believe it or not all those employees are already busy with stuff and don't have time to do what you want them to do.
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Insightful)
the devil is in the details:
Yes, such as the 50,000 studies they "use" annually. Thats 137 studies 'used" per day. I guess common sense doesnt figure into your view of things sine you quoted the part where this is detailed, but failed to notice how ridiculous this is.
you're not a scientist, or even science-adjacent, are you. research institutions, both public and private, review incredible amounts of scientific literature, research results, and related items on a daily basis. that's part of science.
what's not common sense is the belief that the EPA, or any other private or public agency doing science review and research, should stop reviewing data at an arbitrary limit of studies. that's not only the exact antithesis of good science, it's also an asinine claim.
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:4, Insightful)
There is nothing in there that would preclude using decent studies which used non-controversial methodology. Whether the subjects of the studies remain confidential, or not.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot hangs on that word, "presumed."
Only if you completely missed my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress late (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress lat (Score:2)
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?
Faith-based approach to law making (Score:5, Informative)
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".
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Insightful)
The ASA makes most of its revenue by charging large amounts for access to closed academic journals. Of course they're opposed to open access laws.
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:4, Informative)
Publications comprised 20% (2012) and 27% (2011) of ASA's budget, according to this audited report on page 10 of their membership magazine's June 2013 issue (pg 10) (PDF) [amstat.org]. They make a big chunk off publications, but I wouldn't say that's "most of" the revenue; membership dues accounted for 29% (2012) and 25% (2011) of revenue.
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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
Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Let's Cut Through The Crap (Score:5, Informative)
=======
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
???
From this you get the Republicans are the good guys? If this were my only measure I'd count the Dems as the good guys. This bill is a weird combination of stupid and evil.
There are other convincing reasons to *not* count the Dems as good guys, but this isn't one of them. This is just more evidence that we've got two sets of bad guys with slightly different goals. Generally I find the Dems a hair less evil, but I consider them sufficiently evil that I rarely vote for them. I vote for some third party
Don't link to the bills or anything (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't have the masses getting their info right from the source.
Re: (Score:2)
still efforting the 40% threshold for RTFS.
Re:Don't link to the bills or anything (Score:4, Informative)
> 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.
Someone explain the problem with these bills? (Score:2, Insightful)
""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
Re: (Score:3)
1. what is your problem with that?
2. We don't need to publish everything. Just publish what you want to base policy upon. If you don't need to produce policy on it then it doesn't need to comply with these rules. If you DO, then explain why the study you are setting policy on cannot be reproduced and you won't disclose the source of your data?
Its very suspecious and frankly I don't see why a study should be considered credible when it cannot be reproduced and the data it is based upon either will not be dis
Its time for Science to produce Information (Score:3)
Reproducable? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why only the EPA? (Score:3)
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.
Incoming shitstorm (Score:3)
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.
Devil's in the details, and they suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Science vs Belief. (Score:4, Insightful)
Its funny to see climate-change denying conservatives and anti-vaccine liberals make the same arguments to support their stance against overwhelming scientific evidence,
If the EPA is making decisions based on "overwhelming scientific evidence", what exactly is the problem with requiring that that evidence be available to the public, and that people who advise the EPA not base those decisions on unpublished personal research? That's what these bills require.
The only argument I can see that is valid deals with studies including personally identifiable medical information. Those kind of studies should already be required to remove PII prior to use by the government, and the limited number of such datasets shows that this is another case of the perfect being the enemy of the reasonable. Legislation that covers every possible eventuality is going to be overly complex and still have loopholes based on interpretations.
Re:Science vs Belief. (Score:5, Insightful)
what exactly is the problem with requiring that that evidence be available to the public
Nothing's wrong with that.
That's what these bills require.
Nope. I've participated in medical studies (when I was in college, it was easy money). To meet the strict letter of the law, the EPA must publish my SSN, DOB, and medical history, or they can't use the study.
The bill doesn't require "the evidence" be available to the public (that'd be the completed study). The law requires the raw data be published by the EPA.
It also requires the data be "reproducible". All you have to do with a study with 95% confidence is to it 20 times, and then take the 1 failure to court and show the 1 success to be wrong and unreproducible. It may fail in court, but would cost the taxpayer millions, and delay the introduction of rules by years, or decades.
The obvious point of the law is to add hurdles, while claiming (non existent) benefits.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To meet the strict letter of the law, the EPA must publish my SSN, DOB, and medical history, or they can't use the study.
First you claim that the EPA will have to reproduce the data or it will be illegal, and now this. No, the law doesn't say they have to publish your SSN, and at worst only those parts of your history that are relevant to the study might need to be online. If you think your SSN is somehow relevant to a medical study, you're wrong. And if you think your specific DOB is necessary and not just an approximate age, then you must believe in astrology. I know of no medical issues that depend on a specific age down
Re: (Score:2)
First you claim that the EPA will have to reproduce the data or it will be illegal, and now this.
Liar.
Re: (Score:3)
To meet the strict letter of the law, the EPA must publish my SSN, DOB, and medical history, or they can't use the study.
Please show us exactly where it says this.
In a medical study, your SSN, DOB, and (non-anonymized) medical information are not data. In fact they are mostly irrelevant to the actual DATA of the study. Your approximate DOB may be important, and your medical history (and I very highly doubt they would require a complete medical history) might be relevant, but your name or SSN? Fucking hardly.
Re:Science vs Belief. (Score:4, Insightful)
The only argument I can see that is valid deals with studies including personally identifiable medical information. Those kind of studies should already be required to remove PII prior to use by the government
TFA cites a letter sent to the Congressional committee by David Morganstein, president of the American Statistical Association. He writes:
[S]imple but necessary de-identification methods—like stripping names and other personally identifiable information (PII)—often do not suffice to protect confidentiality. Statisticians and computer scientists have repeatedly shown that it is possible to link individuals to publicly available sources, even with PII removed.
You can read Morganstein's full letter here. [house.gov] [PDF alert]
Re: (Score:2)
Statisticians and computer scientists have repeatedly shown that it is possible to link individuals to publicly available sources, even with PII removed.
Sometimes possible, when a study is small enough that the bulk statistics of the population are not sufficient to hide the participants. Yes, when "people who live in Small Town, Alabama who are 43 years old and have the extremely rare disease 'fortunabulosis'" is data in the study, then yeah, you can probably identify the person. But "10000 smokers from the states of Alabama, Florida and Georgia ranging in ages from 30 to 50", no, you are not going to identify the people in the study.
If the EPA is making
Re: (Score:2)
You can read Morganstein's full letter here. [PDF alert]
I read Morganstein's letter. I will repeat what I wrote above: what the bill calls for to be publicly available is the science (i.e. the methodology) and the data. Personal details are not part of the data!!! Those are administrative details.
Just as Morganstein says, simply stripping names is not always enough to de-personalize data. But other methods are easily available.
This is a non-issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Just as Morganstein says, simply stripping names is not always enough to de-personalize data. But other methods are easily available.
This is a non-issue.
Sez you.
Scenario: Scientific study of infant mortality and birth defect rates in a specific neighbourhood (e.g. Love Canal) is used to justify an EPA order shutting down a major manufacturing facility until such time as it ceases to pollute. The data correlates proximity to pollution sources with health data. Using the now-publicly-available data, the manufacturer identifies every family likely to be involved in a class action suit, applies divide-and-conquer techniques. Lobbyists for the industry hire a q
Re: (Score:2)
I'm liberal and am not an anti-vaxxer.
All the anti-vaxxers I know are republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not in these activist's style (Score:5, Insightful)
I was in CA 30 years ago, and more recently. The air quality change was huge. And none of the rules used were science-based. They worked, and worked well. Spending 20 years on each rule, tied up in court, would have killed millions before implementation.
Or unleaded gas. Greatly cut the crime rate, but wasn't backed by science. Lead is bad, so let's ban it. We aren't sure all the problems that level of lead is causing, but it's bad, because we don't like it. But then, long after the ban, we see lead was worse than we thought. But the science followed the rules, by decades. And the rules were right. And if they were wrong, the cost was small.
Sometimes it's better to do the right thing based on the best information you have at the time, than delay the right thing for decades so you can prove it in court against people with a financial interest to get the rules reversed.
Re: (Score:3)
But if your information isn't close to 100% complete and perfect, or if there's a reasonable chance the law will create unintended consequences, then the law should have a sunset clause. It's really quite irresponsible to pass a law under those conditions without one.
Re: (Score:2)
So move to china. you can get all the smog you want since you think trying to make clean air is irresponsible.
That's the thing you can theorize all you want. but some day you actually have to try it. Go back and look at the "scientists" who said the LHC would create a black hole that would consume the planet.
Each of those people equals the "irresponsible" part of your equation.
Re: Today the EPA calls CO2 a pollutant (Score:3)
You know, today's EPA also has changed regulations to make a pond be considered a "navigable waterway". These regulations are ridiculous. I am awaiting the EPA using their SWAT teams to come after farmers for mis managing their waterways.
Re:The Republicans are right (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that ALL the data must be public. For example, it means that medical studies that do not publish the raw data (including patient identities) cannot be used by the EPA as the basis for rule making.
It also requires the EPA to use reproducible results, which means that a number of studies are required and each must come to exactly the same result. Imagine the situation where study results have the same conclusion, but slightly different results (say one says 64% of people will die from smoking and another says 66%). Industries could then argue that the results are not reproducible and these studies should not be used as the basis for restricting cigarettes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Republicans are right (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you completely sure it's bullshit? Are you certain that no group impacted by a ruling will not use every possible way of undermining a negative result, valid or otherwise? Have you so little imagination?
Just look at the news today. Republicans are using four words in Obamacare to remove healthcare subsidies for 15 million people. While the act is completely clear, these four words were poorly chosen, and on that basis they want to throw out a major provision. It's no exaggeration to say that people will die if this challenge is upheld.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Are you completely sure it's bullshit? Are you certain that no group impacted by a ruling will not use every possible way of undermining a negative result, valid or otherwise? Have you so little imagination?
Just look at the news today. Republicans are using four words in Obamacare to remove healthcare subsidies for 15 million people.
Yep. Bullshit, and bullshit.
The law must be enforced as read by reasonable people. That is a principle that goes back over 400 years in our legal history. No reasonable person would interpret the law that way. You can't read it any which bizarre way you see fit and say that's what the law means.
As for Obamacare, that's pure propaganda. It isn't "just 4 words". It's what Congress INTENDED in writing the law (just as I wrote above) which rules the day. And there are far, far more than 4 words about this
Re: (Score:2)
You have to wonder how afraid the Republican party is of the day the Supreme court agrees and yanks the Health Insurance on 9 MILLION people. There will be so many stories like 8 year old kids with leukemia that die because they lost their health insurance that it will absolutely trash the reputation of the GOP. The media will have a field day with it running a constant stream of tear jerking stories about people who lost their health insurance. These stories are perfect ratings drivers and will draw huge v
Re:The Republicans are right (Score:5, Insightful)
in that case then why does this only apply to the EPA, and not all agencies?
Rune
Re: (Score:3)
This is ridiculous. Real after me: It is impossible to scientifically prove that environmental damage is bad, or should be illegal. It is impossible to scientifically prove that killing innocent people is wrong. It is impossible to scientifically prove that theft is wrong. It is impossible to scientifically
Re: (Score:3)
The Republicans don't know the first thing about science. Though truthfully that applies to most politicians, the difference being that one side is at least willing to listen to scientists as experts, rather than assert that they have a right to the data so they can personally review and comment on it despite their thorough lack of qualifications.
The GOP chiefly understands the scientific method as a 5 step recipe they learned in 2nd grade, as evidenced by every time they talk about "the scientific method",
Re:Same old lefty games... (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope you aren't suggesting that Republicans do care about science - there seems to be ample evidence to the contrary.
And why would Democrats want to destroy capitalism? The stock market has done much better under the last two Democratic presidents than under the last two Republicans who held the office. Heck, when Clinton left office we had a net surplus and were actually reducing the national Debt.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope you aren't suggesting that Republicans do care about science
Neil deGrasse Tyson [youtube.com] certainly thinks they do.
Re:Same old tired Spy V. Spy BS (Score:3)