EPA's "Secret Science" rule finalized

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 13, 2021, 5:06:27 PM1/13/21
to The Open Scholarship Initiative

Hi Folks,

 

This heads-up from Nina Collins: The EPA’s awful “Secret Science” rule was finalized last Wednesday. The New York Times has a piece about it at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/04/climate/trump-epa-science.html. The final rule is here:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/06/2020-29179/strengthening-transparency-in-pivotal-science-underlying-significant-regulatory-actions-and.

 

The hope now is that the incoming Biden Administration will nullify this rule and then work quickly to retract it. OSI’s letter of opposition to it is here: On the EPA’s proposed rule to strengthen transparency in science | OSI Global

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

 

 

image003.jpg

David Wojick

unread,
Jan 14, 2021, 6:27:48 AM1/14/21
to Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
It will be interesting to see what arguments they use in the repeal and whether they pass judicial review. Perhaps some listed in the OSI letter (which says it is not an OSI statement) will be used.

A potentially important feature of this rule was discussed in a meeting I was in recently. All I have is hearsay, but that was that in a rulemaking this rule now requires EPA to identify the specific science it's proposed rule is based on. Apparently this is not usually done. 

It would be an interesting study to see the extent to which this has been true. How to make this specification may be challenging (and challenged). This is an open science mandate of sorts.

David

On Jan 13, 2021, at 6:06 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:



--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/01bd01d6e9f8%2456027090%24020751b0%24%40nationalscience.org.

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 14, 2021, 11:17:10 AM1/14/21
to David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Quite the opposite actually. Rulemaking is steeped in science---it used to be the epitome of open science. What this new rule is saying, David, is that there are certain kinds of science that the EPA will now want to independently verify, particularly the kind that does things like limit car emissions. The EPA will label this kind of science “pivotal” and insist that it be able to independently verify findings before accepting the science, as if they actually have the requisite in-house expertise (think labs, statisticians, etc.) to do something like this at scale across potentially hundreds of studies per year. The immediate impact will be to “disqualify” research like the Six-Cities study, which established a clear link between air pollution and mortality.

 

As for rollbacks, this National Law Review article does a nice job of explaining the options (for this and other Trump Administration policies): http://bit.ly/3ieJo5b. According to this article, since this particular EPA policy was published in the Federal Register on January 6, and since the law requires a 30-60 day period after such publication before a new policy can take effect, then the Biden Administration (if this issue is on its radar) can simply prevent this new policy from taking effect.

David Wojick

unread,
Jan 14, 2021, 11:43:32 AM1/14/21
to Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
EPA does not have to verify any research under this rule. Those adversely affected by a proposal can do so if they choose (and can afford it). All EPA has to do is verify that the data and analyses are available if needed. A simple certification does this.

As I said, if they try to prevent a published final rule from going into effect the Court will decide the issue. The legal principle is that those adversely affected by a rule have a right to examine the research behind it. Whether the need to use the best science overrides this principle is the issue. A deep issue indeed.

David

On Jan 14, 2021, at 12:17 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:



Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 14, 2021, 12:16:36 PM1/14/21
to David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Hi David,

 

This isn’t a correct interpretation but I’d rather not litigate this on-list---I’m happy as always to chat off-list. From an open scholarship perspective, there is nothing of value in this EPA policy, nothing that was needed, and nothing that will be improved. For more reading, please see any number of expert analyses:

 

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

image001.jpg
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages