This forum is hosted for free by Boardhost. Create your own free forum!
1 - Goose
- Cogito ergo sum
Offline 
- Registered: 1/29/2015
- Posts: 13,427
"Secret" Science
Here comes the GOP's latest attack on clean air and water...
Senators Approve Bill To Stop EPA From Using ‘Secret Science’
A Senate committee has advanced legislation that would change how the Environmental Protection Agency uses science to craft regulations intended to protect the environment and public health, the Hill reported Tuesday.
On party line votes, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted 11-9 to approve the “Secret Science Reform Act,” a bill to prohibit the EPA from using science that includes private data, or data that can’t be easily reproduced. The bill has been pushed strongly by House Republicans for the last two years, but this is the first time it has been advanced by the Senate. It is sponsored by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY).
The purpose of the Secret Science bill, according to its House sponsor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), is to stop “hidden and flawed” science from being the basis of EPA regulations. However, many scientific organizations have disagreed with this characterization.
For example, approximately 50 scientific societies and universities said the bill would prohibit the EPA from using many large-scale public health studies, because their data “could not realistically be reproduced.” In addition, many studies use private medical data, trade secrets, and industry data that cannot legally be made public.
“The legislation may sound reasonable, but it’s actually a cynical attack on the EPA’s ability to do its job,” said Andrew Rosenberg, the director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement. “This bill would make it impossible for the EPA to use many health studies, since they often contain private patient information that can’t and shouldn’t be revealed.”
Republicans in support of the bill have countered that the EPA could still use data within the studies without disclosing personal information or trade secrets. But it wouldn’t be cheap for those studies to meet the bill’s requirements, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO reported last year that the EPA relies on approximately 50,000 scientific studies to craft its regulations per year, and that meeting the goals of the “Secret Science” bill would cost between $10,000 and $30,000 per study.
When the legislation was moving through the House, Democratic opponents called it disingenuous — a perceived play for “transparency” within the EPA, when all Republicans really want is less EPA regulation. Environmentally-minded Senators on Tuesday seemed to agree. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) told the Hill that the bill was “just a joke,” while Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — who is expected to announce a Presidential bid on Thursday — reportedly called it “laughable.”
For its part, the White House has already threatened to veto the bill if it does come to President Obama’s desk. Obama made the same threat last year when the House passed a similar bill, but the legislation did not reach the then-Democrat controlled Senate.
Now, a notoriously anti-EPA Republican leading the Senate makes it all the more likely that Obama will have to use his veto pen on the Secret Science Reform Act. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said his top priority is “to try to do whatever I can to get the EPA reined in.”
We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists.
- florentine
- Exchanger
Offline
- Registered: 1/29/2015
- Posts: 358
Re: "Secret" Science
''To stop “hidden and flawed” science from being the basis of EPA regulations.''
Hmmmmm. They aren't worried about using their own ''hidden and flawed'' science when it come to matters concerning reproduction, contraception and women's health care.
What is it with these Republicans?
- Just Fred
- Duke of Cortona
Offline
- Registered: 1/29/2015
- Posts: 3,863
Re: "Secret" Science
This is nuts.
- tennyson
- Exchanger
Offline
- Registered: 2/06/2015
- Posts: 6,654
Re: "Secret" Science
I don't agree with anti-environmental agendas, but on the issue of IF a research is not able to be validated easily then I DO AGREE that it does not follow the scientific method. All research should be repeatable and produce the same results.
"Do not confuse motion and progress, A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress"
- Goose
- Cogito ergo sum
Offline
- Registered: 1/29/2015
- Posts: 13,427
Re: "Secret" Science
tennyson wrote:
I don't agree with anti-environmental agendas, but on the issue of IF a research is not able to be validated easily then I DO AGREE that it does not follow the scientific method. All research should be repeatable and produce the same results.
That's not the question at hand. I know of no credible allegation that scientific method was not followed.
The GOP bill is designed to keep the EPA from doing anything.
If a large epidemiological study proves X, the EPA can't do anything about it until they do the exact study again.
If a study doesn't release patient IDs because of confidentiality laws, the EPA cannot use it.
It's a smokescreen to protect big business.
We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists.
- •
Thread Starter- Just Fred
- Duke of Cortona
Offline
- Registered: 1/29/2015
- Posts: 3,863
Re: "Secret" Science
It's a smokescreen to protect big business.
That is correct.
- tennyson
- Exchanger
Offline
- Registered: 2/06/2015
- Posts: 6,654
Re: "Secret" Science
Did anyone take the time to read the bill referenced ? I understand how it certainly stands to reason because of the supporters that this is anti-EPA. It is a short bill (3 pages). I find no objections to what is detailed and actually support the wording. IF there are issues with it I see no reason why opponents to it could not have it amended in its final wording to protect any privacy, etc.
Here is the bill.
"Do not confuse motion and progress, A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress"
- Goose
- Cogito ergo sum
Offline
- Registered: 1/29/2015
- Posts: 13,427
Re: "Secret" Science
Yea, I read the bill.
First, I object that the term "secret science" is both innaccurate and pejorative. It makes it sound as if there is some sort of conspiracy afoot. That plays right into the paranoia of some on the right towards the EPA.
Secondly, the bill is a quagmire, designed to ensure that every EPA reg becomes the center of endless Benghazi type "investigation". For example, Any "action" must be based on the best available science. Well, who gets to decide what constitutes "The best Science"?
Will it be a senator with no scientific training? Pahaps Senator Inhofe, who wrote a book about how climate science is a hoax will decide. Every reg will be stalled because the GOP will find some nutjob "scientist" to counter the best available science. The result will be paralysis. We have already seen the GOP pick and choose data in the climate change fiasco. This will be the same.
The "Publicly Available" requirement was addressed in my first post.
Finally,
The Administrator shall carry out this subsection in a manner that does not exceed $1,000,000 per fiscal year, to be derived from amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated.
Does that mean that the Administrator of the EPA will have to duplicate all these studies, have further analysis of the studies, hearings, etc before acting,,,, while spending less than $1 million dollars on it?
That's an impossibility.
I guess we wil have to disagree on this one. The bill is a transparent attempt to shackle the EPA and let polluters run wild. And the motivation is the extreme and well documented hostility of the Republican party to environmental protections
We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists.
- •
Thread Starter- tennyson
- Exchanger
Offline
- Registered: 2/06/2015
- Posts: 6,654
Re: "Secret" Science
Yea, I read the bill.
First, I object that the term "secret science" is both innaccurate and pejorative. It makes it sound as if there is some sort of conspiracy afoot. That plays right into the paranoia of some on the right towards the EPA.
Secondly, the bill is a quagmire, designed to ensure that every EPA reg becomes the center of Benghazi type shennanigans. For example, who gets to decide what constitutes "The best Science"?
Will it be a senator with no scientific training? Pahaps Senator Inhofe, who wrote a book about how climate science is a hoax will decide. Every reg will be shelved because the GOP will find some nutjob "scientist" to counter the best available science. The result will be paralysis. We have already seen the GOP pick and choose data in the climate change fiasco. This will be the same.
The "Publicly Available" requirement was addressed in my first post.
Finally,
The Administrator shall carry out this subsection in a manner that does not exceed $1,000,000 per fiscal year, to be derived from amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated.
Does that mean that the Administrator of the EPA will have to duplicate all these studies before acting while spending less than $1 million dollars on it. That's an impossibility.
I guess we wil have to disagree on this one. The bill is a transparent attempt to shackle the EPA and let polluters run wild. And the motivation is the extreme and well documented hostility of the Republican party to environmental protections
I too believe the wording on the bill is like a waving a red flag at a bull, however, outside of that I agree with the wording of the bill and I would want that SAME or similar wording to apply to all research done whether it be in support of or in opposotion to something I believed in.
The wording of the bill does not require that the research be re-done, only the fact that there is enough information for anyone to repeat the research if they want to validate or refute the conclusions therein.
Just what (if anything) would you want changed in the wording of the 3 page bill outside of what you quoted and I would agree that this too should be stricken ?
Last edited by tennyson (7/19/2015 10:32 am)
"Do not confuse motion and progress, A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress"
- Goose
- Cogito ergo sum
Offline
- Registered: 1/29/2015
- Posts: 13,427
Re: "Secret" Science
Hey, I offered my objections. And numerous Scientific societies raised the same objections.
What would I change in the bill? I wouldn't change a thing.
I'd get rid of the bill altogether. It is, to be kind, a solution in search of a problem.
Less kind, and more accurate, it is an attempt to limit the ability of the EPA to perform it's function, proposed by people with a long and well documented history of hostility towards environmental protection regulations and science.
We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists.
- •
Thread Starter