L.Last week (Feb. 1), a federal judge abolished a controversial rule that restricted the type of scientific data the Environmental Protection Agency could use to create environmental regulations. The guideline, issued January 5, would have allowed the EPA to ignore or assign less weight to studies based on data that are not publicly available, e.g. B. Those that are kept private because they contain sensitive medical information.
The Agency often relies on this type of data to inform regulations to limit pollution and exposure to toxic chemicals. science Reports.
“[This] is fantastic news. . . . I think that is usually very important, ”says Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center for Science and Democracy of the Union of Scientists Concerned science. “It was a terrible, unjustified idea that should never have plagued us for so long, and the judge recognized that.”
First proposed by the EPA in 2018, the rule claimed to “increase the transparency of its key regulatory measures” by giving greater consideration to studies with publicly available data. “Good science is science that can be replicated and independently validated, science that can stand the test,” Andrew Wheeler, former EPO administrator, told a congressional committee in 2019 The New York Times.
Opponents of the so-called “censored science” rule, including scientists and environmental agencies, have argued that it jeopardizes scientific integrity and public health. “The Censored Science Rule will affect the EPA’s ability to do their job and expose Americans to more health risks from pollution,” said Ben Levitan, senior attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund, in a Jan. 5 statement. The EPA’s ability to ignore certain studies would also “introduce political maneuvers into a purely scientific process”.
The rule is just one of many environmental regulations that former President Donald Trump implemented that President Joe Biden wants to repeal. The Washington Post Reports.