TWO days ago, October 23rd, three scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were to present at a conference on the health of the Narragansett Bay estuary (pictured). They were to unveil a 500-page report, which found that “stressors associated with climate change are increasing rapidly”—but the agency abruptly cancelled the presentation without explanation. Critics pointed to it as the latest example of meddling and muzzling by the agency’s new leadership. Scott Pruitt, the industry-friendly administrator, is sceptical of the scientific consensus on climate change. The agency has also furiously scrubbed references to climate change from its website, and encouraged the creation of a “red team” to play devil’s advocate to established climate science. Mr Pruitt is set to continue his campaign against science he does not much like, by upending several critical advisory boards that the EPA relies on for independent scientific advice.

Mr Pruitt is expected to announce today that scientists who currently receive research grants from the EPA will be barred from sitting on important committees like the Science Advisory Board, which reviews the scientific evidence used to undergird environmental regulations. The professed aim is to prevent conflicts of interest. But the proposal would prohibit many leading environmental experts and researchers from serving. “Inevitably, the top scientists in the field are the ones who are going to be most competitive to receive federal grants,” says Ana Diez Roux, the most recent chair of the Clean Air Scientific Air Committee, which issues authoritative advice on major pollutants, like ozone and particulate matter. Six current and previous board members all noted that the EPA already has stringent conflict-of-interest rules in place. Despite the declared motives of the Mr Pruitt’s directive, scientists working for industries regulated by the EPA would not be prohibited from joining the boards.

Under past administrations of both parties, the boards were seen as technical bodies beyond the political fray. But signs of a coming purge have been mounting. In May half of the scientists on the Board of Scientific Counsellors (BOSC), which audits and advises the EPA’s research office, were told that their terms would not be renewed, as was customary. “It guarantees a less qualified set of advisers, and is a clear attempt by the administrator to remould these boards to his own liking, so that they will support his deregulation agenda rather than provide objective advice,” says Deborah Swackhamer, the chair of BOSC.

Independent scientific boards, though mandated by law, serve at the discretion of the administrator. Mr Pruitt could simply have ignored the recommendations issued by the boards—though this might prove awkward when defending the policies before a judge—or tied up scientists by assigning menial tasks. It is one thing to pursue deregulation in ways broadly favourable to industry, as Mr Pruitt has. It is another to try and weight science in that pursuit. “I’m very concerned about fake news, junk science used to justify certain rule-making processes,” says Joseph Arvai, who served on the Science Advisory Board for six years.

The leading candidate to become the new chair of the Science Advisory Board, according to an EPA official with knowledge of the deliberations, is Michael Honeycutt, who currently works for the Texas state environmental agency. A spokeswoman for Mr Honeycutt said she would “not confirm or deny” his appointment. The EPA declined to comment. Mr Honeycutt, a longtime critic of the EPA, has courted controversy by arguing against ozone regulations since “most people spend more than 90 percent of their time indoors” and testifying before Congress that “some studies even suggest that PM [particulate matter] makes you live longer”.