Dave Farber
2018-10-11 00:28:12 UTC
Date: October 11, 2018 5:49:37 JST
Subject: Interior Department âOpen Scienceâ Directive Echoes EPA Effort
View in browser
Number 114: October 10, 2018
Interior Department âOpen Scienceâ Directive Echoes EPA Effort
The Interior Department has joined the Environmental Protection Agency in advancing policies to require its regulatory decisions be based on scientific studies for which the underlying data is publicly available.
In a directive titled âPromoting Open Scienceâ released late last month, the Department of the Interior outlined steps it plans to take to increase the transparency of its decision-making. Those steps include requiring the departmentâs offices to make the data from scientific studies they use to develop regulations publicly available, with certain exceptions for sensitive information.
The move follows in the footsteps of the Environmental Protection Agency, which advanced a similar requirement through a proposed rule issued by Administrator Scott Pruitt shortly before he resigned in July. After receiving thousands of public comments during an extended input period that closed in August, the proposal now awaits final action by Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.
Proponents of the new policies argue the agenciesâ current decision-making procedures allow them to rely on opaque studies to support preordained conclusions. Critics assert the professed concern over transparency is insincere and that the policies are actually designed to hobble agenciesâ ability to justify and enact regulations.
The directive on âPromoting Open Scienceâ was issued by Deputy Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, pictured above at the Bureau of Land Managementâs Rio Grande Gorge Visitor Center in New Mexico. (Image credit â DOI)
DOI says directive will prevent it from âcherry picking scienceâ
The stated purpose of the DOI directive is to ensure the department makes decisions based on the âbest available scienceâ and provides the public with sufficient information to âsubstantively evaluate the data, methodology, and analysisâ it uses. DOI has regulatory authority over a number of land and wildlife conservation matters, such as enforcement of the Endangered Species Act.
Describing the motivation for the directive, a DOI spokesperson stated,
âThis order came about in response to perennial concerns that the department has not been providing sufficient information to the public to explain how and why it reaches certain conclusions, or that it is cherry picking science to support pre-determined outcomes.â
The policy directs all offices within DOI to âutilize and prioritize publicly available, reproducible, peer-reviewed science to the extent possible.â The offices also must justify any instances in which decisions rely on scientific findings that âare not supported by publicly available raw data, analysis, or methodology, have not been peer reviewed, or are not readily reproducible.â
That provision appears to grant the department flexibility to use studies lacking publicly available data for certain types of decisions. However, for proposed and final regulations, the policy states the department âshallâ make the associated scientific data, analyses, and methodologies âpublicly available with sufficient specificity to allow meaningful third party evaluation and reproduction.â It also requires that all grants and contracts used to acquire third-party research permit the department to âpublicly release associated data, analysis, methodology, reports, conclusions, or other resulting analysis.â
DOI indicates it will implement the policy through a rulemaking process that provides an opportunity for public comment.
DOI and EPA stressing need for greater reproducibility
The emphasis on reproducibility is a key similarity between the DOI and EPA directives, and both cite many of the same policy documents as justification for new transparency requirements.
In particular, both reference President Trumpâs executive orders on âEnforcing the Regulatory Reform Agendaâ and âPromoting Energy Independence and Economic Growthâ as foundational motivations for action. The former order identifies regulatory decisions that are âinsufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibilityâ as a central concern. The latter states that environmental regulations must be developed using âtransparent processes that employ the best available peer-reviewed science and economics.â
The agency directives also cite an Obama-era memorandum on scientific integrity as evidence of bipartisan support for increasing the transparency of scientific inputs to government decisions. However, that memo only explicitly calls for agencies to make the underlying scientific âfindingsâ publicly available, not necessarily the associated data.
Another important commonality is that both directives include a clause permitting their requirements to be waived on a case-by-case basis to protect privacy, confidential business information, or national security.
Congressional debate centers on sincerity of âsecret scienceâ concerns
On Oct. 3, a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing titled âOversight of the EPAâs Implementation of Sound and Transparent Science in Regulationâ offered a new window into the debate over the EPA proposal. The hearing was convened by Regulatory Oversight Subcommittee Chair Mike Rounds (R-SD), who is the sponsor of the âHonest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act,â which would enshrine similar transparency requirements in statute. The DOI directive was not discussed.
This is the first time the Senate has held a hearing on the EPA proposal. Arguments aired at the latest hearing were largely similar to those made in the House during debate on its version of the "HONEST Act," which that chamber approved on a mostly party-line vote last year.
Rounds spoke favorably of EPAâs proposal, asserting a lack of transparency at EPA leads the agency to âseek out the science that supports a predetermined policy outcome rather than relying on the best available science.â He also expressed confidence that EPA could adequately redact sensitive information by drawing on de-identification procedures already used by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Committee Chair John Barrasso (R-WY) likewise expressed concern about EPA relying on âsecret science.â Barrasso is a co-sponsor of the "HONEST Act" and in previous sessions of Congress was the primary sponsor of its predecessor, called the âSecret Science Reform Act.â
Meanwhile, Democratic members argued EPAâs proposal could preclude the use of many relevant scientific studies, such as those that rely on confidential personal health data, and questioned the sincerity of its stated rationale.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asserted the proposal's lineage can be traced to past efforts by the tobacco industry to influence the use of science in public health regulation. In a 54-page comment submitted on the proposal, he and eight other Senate Democrats make the case that it is an extension of a decades-long industry-backed campaign to hamstring EPA âunder the guise of defending âsound scienceâ and defeating âsecret science.ââ They also argue the waiver provision in the proposed role could allow the EPA administrator to shield studies funded by industry from scrutiny.
Experts testifying before the committee expressed similarly divergent opinions on the proposal. Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and one of the two majority-invited witnesses, said it is an âexcellent startâ that should be extended to encompass, for instance, data EPA considered but ultimately did not use in any given rulemaking.
The minority-invited witness, American Association for the Advancement of Science CEO and former Democratic congressman Rush Holt, called the rule an âinsidious dodgeâ that is being used to advance a deregulatory agenda rather than address a sincere concern about the adequacy of scientific peer review.
âThe proponents of the rule say they want to eliminate âsecret science.â There is no secret science,â Holt said, adding,
âThe open secret is that the proponents of the rule are not seeking a better scientific process. They appear to be seeking a way to cherry-pick research in order to loosen regulation.â
Whether EPA intends to substantially modify the proposed rule is unclear, as is its timeline for issuing a final version. EPAâs Science Advisory Board has requested the agency consult the board before proceeding, noting that the âprecise design of the proposed rule appears to have been developed without public process for soliciting input specifically from the scientific community.â
Contact the Author
Mitch Ambrose
American Institute of Physics
(301) 209-3095
More From FYI
Final FY19 Appropriations: Department of Defense S&T
In fiscal year 2019, Congress is continuing to invest heavily in Department of Defense R&D programs to counter the increasing sophistication of rival nations such as China and Russia. Combined funding for basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development is increasing by 7 percent to almost $16 billion.
Read More >
Efforts to Combat Sexual Harassment Gain Momentum
Amid increasing calls for action from within the scientific community and Congress, some federal agencies and scientific societies have advanced new initiatives to combat sexual harassment in the sciences.
Read More >
The Week of October 8
- Astrobiology Strategy Set for Release
- IPCC Charts Path to Limiting Warming
- DOE Nuclear Energy Office Nominee Picked
- Plus: In Case You Missed It / Events / Opportunities
Read More >
Sign Up for FYI
If this was forwarded to you, you can sign up for FYI by clicking here.
For more science policy news, visit the FYI website.
If you wish to manage your FYI preferences and alert subscriptions, please click here.
If you no longer wish to receive email from FYI, please click here to unsubscribe from all FYI emails.
Follow FYI
© 2018 American Institute of Physics
One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740
-------------------------------------------Subject: Interior Department âOpen Scienceâ Directive Echoes EPA Effort
View in browser
Number 114: October 10, 2018
Interior Department âOpen Scienceâ Directive Echoes EPA Effort
The Interior Department has joined the Environmental Protection Agency in advancing policies to require its regulatory decisions be based on scientific studies for which the underlying data is publicly available.
In a directive titled âPromoting Open Scienceâ released late last month, the Department of the Interior outlined steps it plans to take to increase the transparency of its decision-making. Those steps include requiring the departmentâs offices to make the data from scientific studies they use to develop regulations publicly available, with certain exceptions for sensitive information.
The move follows in the footsteps of the Environmental Protection Agency, which advanced a similar requirement through a proposed rule issued by Administrator Scott Pruitt shortly before he resigned in July. After receiving thousands of public comments during an extended input period that closed in August, the proposal now awaits final action by Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.
Proponents of the new policies argue the agenciesâ current decision-making procedures allow them to rely on opaque studies to support preordained conclusions. Critics assert the professed concern over transparency is insincere and that the policies are actually designed to hobble agenciesâ ability to justify and enact regulations.
The directive on âPromoting Open Scienceâ was issued by Deputy Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, pictured above at the Bureau of Land Managementâs Rio Grande Gorge Visitor Center in New Mexico. (Image credit â DOI)
DOI says directive will prevent it from âcherry picking scienceâ
The stated purpose of the DOI directive is to ensure the department makes decisions based on the âbest available scienceâ and provides the public with sufficient information to âsubstantively evaluate the data, methodology, and analysisâ it uses. DOI has regulatory authority over a number of land and wildlife conservation matters, such as enforcement of the Endangered Species Act.
Describing the motivation for the directive, a DOI spokesperson stated,
âThis order came about in response to perennial concerns that the department has not been providing sufficient information to the public to explain how and why it reaches certain conclusions, or that it is cherry picking science to support pre-determined outcomes.â
The policy directs all offices within DOI to âutilize and prioritize publicly available, reproducible, peer-reviewed science to the extent possible.â The offices also must justify any instances in which decisions rely on scientific findings that âare not supported by publicly available raw data, analysis, or methodology, have not been peer reviewed, or are not readily reproducible.â
That provision appears to grant the department flexibility to use studies lacking publicly available data for certain types of decisions. However, for proposed and final regulations, the policy states the department âshallâ make the associated scientific data, analyses, and methodologies âpublicly available with sufficient specificity to allow meaningful third party evaluation and reproduction.â It also requires that all grants and contracts used to acquire third-party research permit the department to âpublicly release associated data, analysis, methodology, reports, conclusions, or other resulting analysis.â
DOI indicates it will implement the policy through a rulemaking process that provides an opportunity for public comment.
DOI and EPA stressing need for greater reproducibility
The emphasis on reproducibility is a key similarity between the DOI and EPA directives, and both cite many of the same policy documents as justification for new transparency requirements.
In particular, both reference President Trumpâs executive orders on âEnforcing the Regulatory Reform Agendaâ and âPromoting Energy Independence and Economic Growthâ as foundational motivations for action. The former order identifies regulatory decisions that are âinsufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibilityâ as a central concern. The latter states that environmental regulations must be developed using âtransparent processes that employ the best available peer-reviewed science and economics.â
The agency directives also cite an Obama-era memorandum on scientific integrity as evidence of bipartisan support for increasing the transparency of scientific inputs to government decisions. However, that memo only explicitly calls for agencies to make the underlying scientific âfindingsâ publicly available, not necessarily the associated data.
Another important commonality is that both directives include a clause permitting their requirements to be waived on a case-by-case basis to protect privacy, confidential business information, or national security.
Congressional debate centers on sincerity of âsecret scienceâ concerns
On Oct. 3, a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing titled âOversight of the EPAâs Implementation of Sound and Transparent Science in Regulationâ offered a new window into the debate over the EPA proposal. The hearing was convened by Regulatory Oversight Subcommittee Chair Mike Rounds (R-SD), who is the sponsor of the âHonest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act,â which would enshrine similar transparency requirements in statute. The DOI directive was not discussed.
This is the first time the Senate has held a hearing on the EPA proposal. Arguments aired at the latest hearing were largely similar to those made in the House during debate on its version of the "HONEST Act," which that chamber approved on a mostly party-line vote last year.
Rounds spoke favorably of EPAâs proposal, asserting a lack of transparency at EPA leads the agency to âseek out the science that supports a predetermined policy outcome rather than relying on the best available science.â He also expressed confidence that EPA could adequately redact sensitive information by drawing on de-identification procedures already used by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Committee Chair John Barrasso (R-WY) likewise expressed concern about EPA relying on âsecret science.â Barrasso is a co-sponsor of the "HONEST Act" and in previous sessions of Congress was the primary sponsor of its predecessor, called the âSecret Science Reform Act.â
Meanwhile, Democratic members argued EPAâs proposal could preclude the use of many relevant scientific studies, such as those that rely on confidential personal health data, and questioned the sincerity of its stated rationale.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asserted the proposal's lineage can be traced to past efforts by the tobacco industry to influence the use of science in public health regulation. In a 54-page comment submitted on the proposal, he and eight other Senate Democrats make the case that it is an extension of a decades-long industry-backed campaign to hamstring EPA âunder the guise of defending âsound scienceâ and defeating âsecret science.ââ They also argue the waiver provision in the proposed role could allow the EPA administrator to shield studies funded by industry from scrutiny.
Experts testifying before the committee expressed similarly divergent opinions on the proposal. Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and one of the two majority-invited witnesses, said it is an âexcellent startâ that should be extended to encompass, for instance, data EPA considered but ultimately did not use in any given rulemaking.
The minority-invited witness, American Association for the Advancement of Science CEO and former Democratic congressman Rush Holt, called the rule an âinsidious dodgeâ that is being used to advance a deregulatory agenda rather than address a sincere concern about the adequacy of scientific peer review.
âThe proponents of the rule say they want to eliminate âsecret science.â There is no secret science,â Holt said, adding,
âThe open secret is that the proponents of the rule are not seeking a better scientific process. They appear to be seeking a way to cherry-pick research in order to loosen regulation.â
Whether EPA intends to substantially modify the proposed rule is unclear, as is its timeline for issuing a final version. EPAâs Science Advisory Board has requested the agency consult the board before proceeding, noting that the âprecise design of the proposed rule appears to have been developed without public process for soliciting input specifically from the scientific community.â
Contact the Author
Mitch Ambrose
American Institute of Physics
(301) 209-3095
More From FYI
Final FY19 Appropriations: Department of Defense S&T
In fiscal year 2019, Congress is continuing to invest heavily in Department of Defense R&D programs to counter the increasing sophistication of rival nations such as China and Russia. Combined funding for basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development is increasing by 7 percent to almost $16 billion.
Read More >
Efforts to Combat Sexual Harassment Gain Momentum
Amid increasing calls for action from within the scientific community and Congress, some federal agencies and scientific societies have advanced new initiatives to combat sexual harassment in the sciences.
Read More >
The Week of October 8
- Astrobiology Strategy Set for Release
- IPCC Charts Path to Limiting Warming
- DOE Nuclear Energy Office Nominee Picked
- Plus: In Case You Missed It / Events / Opportunities
Read More >
Sign Up for FYI
If this was forwarded to you, you can sign up for FYI by clicking here.
For more science policy news, visit the FYI website.
If you wish to manage your FYI preferences and alert subscriptions, please click here.
If you no longer wish to receive email from FYI, please click here to unsubscribe from all FYI emails.
Follow FYI
© 2018 American Institute of Physics
One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=26461375
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=26461375&id_secret=26461375-c2b8a462&post_id=20181010202823:8DA02770-CCEC-11E8-B058-EE38B5596A2A
Powered by Listbox: https://www.listbox.com