NYT Opposes Making EPA Science Reports Transparent

Science does not live in a vacuum and every legitimate scientific paper is available for peer review or it is written off as junk science except where the EPA is involved.

The head of the EPA has called for transparency in the science used to pass EPA regulations. In an editorial, the New York Times said they oppose transparency based on two arguments.

The first argument is for the privacy of those being tested, but Scott Pruitt specifically called for all personal information to be redacted. So that doesn’t hold water. It’s the second argument that makes me laugh. They say it would make it harder to pass regulations.

Of course, it would because it’s junk science.

From The Daily Caller

Essentially, Pruitt’s critics argue there’s no way for researchers to meet transparency requirements without breaching confidentiality. Yet, the legislation Pruitt’s policy is based on explicitly calls for redacting confidential information.

Texas Rep. Lamar Smith’s HONEST ACT requires EPA to make the underlying data of studies available “except that any personally identifiable information, trade secrets, or commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential, shall be redacted prior to public availability.”

In fact, Steve Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com, said McCarthy and McCabe — indeed, all critics of Pruitt’s transparency policy — the research community already has mechanisms to protect confidential medical data.

Malloy pointed out that all scientists really need is a date of death, age at death, cause of death and zip of residence at death.” None of that is personal information which appears on death certificates that are publicly available. So, the studies actually have less personal information than death certificates that anyone can access.

There is no privacy issue.

Studies may show additional information such as tobacco and alcohol use, occupation, education level and other data, there is no personal identification needed in the studies.

When a researcher requests this publicly available information, it is already scrubbed of all personal identification. The EPA has been draining resources from the economy for no apparent reason other that than ideology.