Pruitt About to Take Next Step in Banning Science at the EPA

[wvit1001]

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt is expected to propose a rule Tuesday that would establish new standards for what science could be used in writing agency regulations, according to individuals briefed on the plan. It is a sweeping change long sought by conservatives.

The rule, which Pruitt has described in interviews with select media over the past month, would only allow EPA to consider studies for which the underlying data are made available publicly. Advocates describe this approach as an advance for transparency, but critics say it would effectively block the agency from relying on long-standing, landmark studies linking air pollution and pesticide exposure to harmful health effects.

….Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, said in an email that Pruitt’s move would expand on his earlier decision to change the standards for who can serve on EPA’s advisory committees….“First, they came after the agency’s independent science advisers, and now, they’re going after the science itself,” Rosenberg said. “What is transparent is the unabashed takeover of EPA leadership by individuals who have demonstrated disinterest in helping communities combat pollution by using the best available science.”



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/24/pruitt-to-unveil-controversial-transparency-rule-limiting-what-research-epa-can-use/



Trump himself doesn't believe in "open or publicly available data" does he?   Isn't he giving China a hard time about their stealing our intellectual data right now?



Open data may include non-textual material such as maps, genomes, connectomes, chemical compounds, mathematical and scientific formulae, medical data and practice, bioscience and biodiversity. Problems often arise because these are commercially valuable or can be aggregated into works of value. Access to, or re-use of, the data is controlled by organisations, both public and private. Control may be through access restrictions, licenses, copyright, patents and charges for access or re-use. Advocates of open data argue that these restrictions are against the common good and that these data should be made available without restriction or fee. In addition, it is important that the data are re-usable without requiring further permission, though the types of re-use (such as the creation of derivative works) may be controlled by a license.

Creators of data often do not consider the need to state the conditions of ownership, licensing and re-use; instead presuming that not asserting copyright puts the data into the public domain. For example, many scientists do not regard the published data arising from their work to be theirs to control and consider the act of publication in a journal to be an implicit release of data into the commons. However, the lack of a license makes it difficult to determine the status of a data set and may restrict the use of data offered in an "Open" spirit. Because of this uncertainty it is also possible for public or private organizations to aggregate said data, protect it with copyright and then resell it.

The issue of indigenous knowledge (IK) poses a great challenge in terms of capturing, storage and distribution. Many societies in third-world countries lack the technicality processes of managing the IK.

[Oscar_LaVista]

I agree with most of the anti-science mindset of trump and his goony appointees where science should be a high priority, like the EPA, NASA, Secretary of Energy, and just a decent education, when it comes to Betsy DeVos being head of Education....but this part of the article, that is being proposed by Trump and this big oil stooge Pruitt, I actually agree with- 


would only allow EPA to consider studies for which the underlying data are made available publicly

[wvit1001]

data costs money.   when private companies collect data and make it public ally available they are essentially just giving it away.   Why would they want to do that? 

[Dan]

You mean he is going to RESTORE science.

[Jw2]

It does not surprise me that anchoragedan is taking the position of his Russian handlers.

[D2D]

Remember Democrats exist to deny science!

[Dan]

Jw sure seems to know a lot about Russian handlers.  He probably was recruited by one when he studied Marxist propaganda in Moscow.

[Oscar_LaVista]

data costs money.   when private companies collect data and make it public ally available they are essentially just giving it away.   Why would they want to do that?  

are you telling me researchers collect boring ass data and write boring ass reports about that boring ass data because they think it will be on the NY Times Best Seller list?  They get paid to collect the date and write a report, not on sales!!  who would buy that boring ass shit?  if we are going to enact a public law based on data, wherever it comes from, that source should be identified. 

[Jw2]

A good deal of "data" includes medical reports - like people who suffer the results of an oil or chemical refinery discharge.

Those records are considered private by HIPA medical privacy laws...and thus publicly unavailable.

Consequently, data on victims of industrial pollution isn't avaiable.  Essentially, their suffering at the hands of polluters doesn't count.