Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Scott Pruitt is about to take a major step toward reshaping the agency's scientific advisory committees. This action, to come in the form of a directive next week, will effectively replace scientists on scientific advisory committees with representatives of the industries the EPA regulates.

Apparently conflict of interest means different things to different people.

Typically staffed by top experts, the EPA's scientific advisory committees are tasked with ensuring that the scientific information the agency uses in its rule-making is the best-available data on the topic.

This is especially important since the EPA gets sued constantly, so any rules or other actions the agency takes could be vulnerable in court if the science underpinning the decision turns out to be flawed or out of date.

Pruitt has already taken unprecedented steps to alter the composition of these committees, including not renewing terms for existing panel members, or dismissing members outright.

The coal-fired Plant Scherer, one of the nation's top carbon dioxide emitters, stands in the distance in Juliette, Ga., June, 3, 2017. Image: AP/REX/Shutterstock

On Tuesday, in a speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, Pruitt announced the next step in his quest to bring more industry-friendly voices to the committees. He said he plans to issue a directive next week that would prohibit anyone from serving on an advisory committee who has received grant funding from the EPA.

While that might seem like a commonsense move toward greater independence, the fact is that the EPA is one of the largest funding sources of environmental health research. Therefore, this requirement will likely disqualify hundreds of potential committee members, and instead allow representatives of industries regulated by the EPA — such as the chemical and energy industries — to gain more representation.

“The scientists that make up these bodies, and there are dozens and dozens of these folks, over the years as they’ve served on these committees, guess what’s also happened? They’ve received monies through grants, and sometimes substantial monies through grants," Pruitt said.

One agency watchdog, Michael Halpern of the Union of Concerned Scientists, called Pruitt's move "gobsmackingly boneheaded."

The implicit message in Pruitt's statement is that money going to scientific research somehow biases scientists and the advice they would give. This is a common argument put forward by climate deniers who assail the government's grants for scientific research. (Perhaps it's not a surprise that Pruitt denies that carbon dioxide is the main driver of global warming, then.)

"And if we have individuals that are on those boards receiving money from the agency sometimes going back years and years to the tune of literally tens of millions of dollars over time, that to me causes question on the independence and the veracity and the transparency of those recommendations that are coming our way," Pruitt said.

Hinting at the upcoming actions, Pruitt said:

Next week, I want you to know something, I don’t want to get ahead of myself too much, but next week we’re gonna fix that. Next week I’m going to issue a directive that addresses that… to ensure the independence and transparency and objectivity with respect to the scientific advice that we’re getting at the agency.

The UCS' Halpern wrote in a blog post that Pruitt's actions were grossly distorting the meaning of conflicts of interest.

"Getting science advice from the EPA Science Advisory Board is like getting basketball tips from 40 Steph Currys. It’s the best in the business, volunteering their time in service of the public good," Halpern, the deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy, wrote.

"So let’s recap: according to some, scientists who receive money from oil and chemical companies are perfectly qualified to provide the EPA with independent science advice, while those who receive federal grants are not. It’s a fundamental misrepresentation of how conflicts of interest work."

During the same Heritage Foundation appearance, which was broadcast via Facebook Live, Pruitt also addressed his desire for public debates on the fundamentals of climate science, which he says has never happened despite decades to centuries of open, peer-reviewed research.

2016 was the warmest year on record, beating the previous record set the year before. Image: bob al-greene/mashable

Such red team, blue team debates, currently slated to take place early in 2018, are widely seen among scientists as an attempt to confuse the public about the reliability of climate science findings.

Pruitt, clearly sees it differently.

“The American people deserve, in my view, an objective, transparent, honest discussion about what we know and what we don’t know about CO2," Pruitt said. "It’s never taken place.”

Earlier this month, Pruitt announced the withdrawal of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which covered greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector.

For now, at least, the EPA isn't putting any replacement rules into effect, despite a Supreme Court-mandated requirement to do so.

It looks like we'll have to wait-and-see what the new advisory committees have to say about this.