Let me start by saying that as a scientist I am against the idea of secret science. Science should be an open process and certainly not secret.
But sometimes, it isn’t. And there is nothing sinister about that. And certainly no need to be reformed. However, that is not what this bill is about. If science needed to be reformed and it doesn’t, Congress is the last place I would think of.
The House of Representatives passed the “Secret Science Reform Act of 2015”on March 18, 2015. The bill now goes to the Senate where is may or may not be passed. If it is passed the White House threatens a veto.
Although it is not referenced in the title this bill is about putting severe and confusing limits on how the EPA can use science. So here is the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Secret Science Reform Act of 2015”.
SEC. 2. DATA TRANSPARENCY.
Section 6(b) of the Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4363 note) is
amended to read as follows:
(b)(1) The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or
disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and technical
information relied on to support such covered action is–
(A) the best available science;
(B) specifically identified; and
(C) 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–
(A) requiring the Administrator to disseminate scientific
and technical information; or
(B) superseding any nondiscretionary statutory
requirement.(3) In this subsection–
(A) the term `covered action’ means a risk, exposure, or
hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation,
regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or guidance; and
(B) the term `scientific and technical information’
includes–
(i) materials, data, and associated protocols
necessary to understand, assess, and extend
conclusions;
(ii) computer codes and models involved in the
creation and analysis of such information;
(iii) recorded factual materials; and
(iv) detailed descriptions of how to access and
use such information.(4) 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.
Ideally, science is published in the open literature. A rigorous peer review process nearly always makes sure there is enough detail that the claim can be tested by others.
But even then all the data are not public. And there could be good reasons for not making all the data public. Suppose it is a human health study. Does all the medical information need to be publicly disclosed? If so, does this violated other federal laws on confidentiality of such information? If such data can be made public, would people refuse to participate in this research?
Does this pretty much make it impossible for the EPA to regulate chemicals which are detrimental to human health?
Is medical information excepted by section 2B ( “superseding any nondiscretionary statutory requirement.”)? I’m not sure what this means but maybe it does have a specific meaning to a lawyer or government official.
This openness requirement includes ‘computer codes’ (see subsection 3B) . What does this mean? Does the investigator need to make source code available (which may be property of a private company making the software)? Or just reveal which software was used? Or does it refer to specific coding done by the investigator?
The law makes specific demands on the EPA without clear explanations and limitations and probably conflicts other federal laws.
Even if all the meanings of these vague points and problems cited above can be worked out , the EPA cannot force the investigator generating the study to comply with the wishes of congress. Except for scientific studies actually done at the EPA or with EPA funding, I would think that the EPA administrator has little or no authority over scientists. So unless scientists publishing a study are willing to meet the requirements of this bill, the data could not be used by the EPA to protect our health or mitigate some environmental problem.
In addition there could be other studies that follow the methods of science and could be relevant to the EPA but are not published for one reason or another. For example a company may conduct a study but not want to make the information public (available to competitors).
I think the EPA should clearly explain the science behind their regulations. Science is a self-correcting process. Sometimes we think we know something and it is prudent to act at that point even if there is some uncertainty.
Ideally, it would be nice to always refer to publicly available published literature. However in some cases the most relevant data may not be publicly available but if it is relevant and can be evaluated, why should it not be used?
Is there really a problem here or is Congress just trying to create one?