Original post: https://junkscience.com/2018/05/maga-miracle-op-ed-by-conservative-economist-in-wapo-supporting-epa-transparency-rulemaking-is-epa-media-release/#more-93749
The combination of the Washington Post printing an op-ed
by a conservative economist supporting the Scott Pruitt-led EPA’s
science transparency initiative, which then becomes an EPA media
release… well, that just doesn’t happen every day!
Many Mocked This Scott Pruitt Proposal. They Should Have Read It First.
The Washington Post
By Robert Hahn
May 10, 2018
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/many-mocked-this-scott-pruitt-proposal-they-should-have-read-it-first/2018/05/10/31baba9a-53c2-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f7bcbc0a1887
Robert Hahn is a visiting professor at Oxford University’s Smith
School of Enterprise and the Environment and a non-resident senior
fellow at the Brookings Institution. He recently served as a
commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking.
When Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt
proposed a rule last month to improve transparency in science used to
make policy decisions, he was roundly criticized by interest groups and
academics. Several researchers asserted that the policy would be used to
undermine a litany of existing environmental protections. Former Obama
administration EPA officials co-wrote a New York Times op-ed in which
they said the proposal “would undermine the nation’s scientific
credibility.” The Economist derided the policy as “swamp science.”
But there is a lot to cheer about in the rule that opponents have
missed. A careful reading suggests it could promote precisely the kind
of evidence-based policy most scientists and the public should support.
Critics typically argue that the proposed regulation would suppress
research that contains confidential medical records and therefore
scientists could not share underlying data publicly for privacy reasons.
Such restrictions, these critics say, would have excluded landmark
research, such as Harvard University’s “Six Cities” study, which
suggested that reducing fine particles in the air would dramatically
improve human health and helped lead to more stringent regulation of
fine particles in the United States.
…
But it appears that few defenders or opponents of the proposal have
actually read the proposed EPA regulation, which is only seven pages
long. Both sides distort the regulatory text.
Here’s what the rule would actually do. First, it would require the
EPA to identify studies that are used in making regulatory decisions.
Second, it would encourage studies to be made publicly available “to the
extent practicable.” Third, it would define “publicly available” by
listing examples of information that could be used for validation, such
as underlying data, models, computer code and protocols. Fourth, the
proposal recognizes not all data can be openly accessible in the public
domain and that restricted access to some data may be necessary. Fifth,
it would direct the EPA to work with third parties, including
universities and private firms, to make information available to the
extent reasonable. Sixth, it would encourage the use of efforts to
de-identify data sets to create public-use data files that would
simultaneously help protect privacy and promote transparency. Seventh,
the proposal outlines an exemption process when compliance is
“impracticable.” Finally, it would direct the EPA to clearly state and
document assumptions made in regulatory analyses.
Here’s what the EPA’s rule wouldn’t do: nullify existing
environmental regulations, disregard existing research, violate
confidentiality protections, jeopardize privacy or undermine the
peer-review process.
The costs of compliance with EPA regulations are substantial. A draft
report from the White House Office of Management and Budget suggests
that significant EPA regulations imposed costs ranging from $54 billion
to $65 billion over the past decade. These rules also realize
substantial public-health and environmental benefits estimated to range
from $196 billion to $706 billion over the decade.
Given the stakes for both the cost of compliance with EPA regulations
and the real risks that pollution poses to public health and the
environment, this rule should be read closely by critics and supporters
for what it actually says. Just as transparency in science and evidence
are essential, so, too, are intellectual honesty and accurate policy
communication.
Taking steps to increase access to data, with strong privacy
protections, is how society will continue to make scientific and
economic progress and ensure that evidence in rule-making is sound. The
EPA’s proposed rule follows principles laid out in 2017 by the
bipartisan Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking — humility,
transparency, privacy, capacity and rigor — and moves us toward
providing greater access to scientific data while protecting individual
privacy.
Instead of throwing stones, the scientific community should come
together to offer practical suggestions to make the rule better. For
example, the rule should recognize the incentives for scientists to
produce new research. Scientists need to have time to produce and take
credit for their research findings. Thus, there will inevitably be a
trade-off between the production of new insights and the sharing of data
with others, including regulators.
Done right, this could improve government policy not only in the United States but also around the world.
It’s still hard to tell how this rule will affect EPA decisions, but one
thing is clear: The rule will make the evidence by which we make policy
decisions more transparent. The policy might not be perfect, but its
benefits will likely far outweigh its costs.
A Medley of Potpourri is just what it says; various thoughts, opinions, ruminations, and contemplations on a variety of subjects.
Search This Blog
Petroleum reservoir
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_reservoir A str...
-
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام ( ...
-
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A reproduction of the palm -leaf manuscript in Siddham script ...