Secret science
Editorial
Copyright 1999 Washington Times
February 11, 1999
When the Environmental Protection Agency announced big plans to
regulate minute
air particles two years ago, it did so with the loftiest
intentions. Studies,
said the agency, showed the particles were invisible killers,
prematurely
dispatching tens of thousands of people each year to an early
grave; it was
up to government to regulate them out of existence.
There was just one problem with the agency's high-minded
campaign: There was no
data to suggest just how dangerous the particles - which come from
auto
exhaust, barbecues and other sources -really are. Scientists who
conducted the
studies on which EPA based its rules refused to release the
data. So no one could use them to verify their findings, which is
common
practice in the scientific community. That didn't stop the agency
from pushing
forward with its costly new rules, however.
Fortunately, the country may not have to suffer much more
of this
secret science. Under a new rule proposed by the Office of
Management and Budget, all
research subsidized with taxpayer dollars would have to be open to
the people
who paid for it. That is, scientists would have to release the raw
data on
which they have based their
findings.
Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, who introduced legislation
last year authorizing
the new rule, said it would increase confidence in the scientific
credibility
of agency rulemaking.
"The taxpayers of America fund these grants," he told the
Mobile, Ala., Register.
"We need access to the decision-making process.
It ought to be based on good science, and regulators ought to be
able to defend
the science."
Who could be against sound science? California Rep.
George Brown for one. He
and 20 other House lawmakers have written a letter to OMB, arguing
that the
proposal would, among other things, comprise the
confidentiality of volunteers participating in research and raise
administrative costs for universities and other research
facilities. But the
OMB rule would make data available under the Freedom of Information
Act, which
exempts
"personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure
of which would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy." The rule also provides for a fee covering
the cost of providing the data.
In the EPA case involving the air particles, the agency
argued it was necessary
to release underlying data because the data had been used in
studies published
in peer-reviewed journals; if scientific reviewers are
satisfied that the findings are credible enough to publish, why
isn't that good
enough for taxpayers?
Publication is indeed an important standard in the
scientific process. But it
is not the only standard. It is quite possible to find scientists
refuting -
or at least not replicating - research after
it has already appeared in a research publication. That's part of
the
scientific process.
What really worries EPA and Rep. Brown is that junk
science used to justify
agency rulemaking they favor may not be able to withstand scrutiny.
That would
kill the rule. So it's better to keep junk science a
secret, better to waste taxpayer dollars on environmental problems
that either
don't really exist or don't pose serious risks, better to panic
Americans and
divert their attention from more serious problems?
This newspaper doesn't think so. OMB should insist on
releasing tax-funded
scientific data from its
regulatory fetters. If it's sound science, no one should insist on
keeping it
secret.
Comments on this posting?
Click here to
post a public comment on the Trash Talk
Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private
comment to the Junkman.