opinion

Trump's war on science

Government Departments of Interior, Agriculture, Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were established to develop and implement federal policies based on the best known scientific research.

Trump labors under the misconception that they exist to implement his policies rather than to help define what they should be.

White House Office of Management and Budget’s Mick Mulvaney left no doubt that climate science is a major target when he told reporters that funding was “a waste of your money.”

Most nominees for departmental posts are science-denying and industry-associated, including Rick Perry, Ryan Zinke, and Scott Pruitt, directors of Energy, Interior, and EPA, respectively. Their mandate is to downplay science in favor of industry considerations. (An attendee reported that Perry told a gathering of fossil fuel executives that he was proud to be “part of the energy industry” [Washington Post, 9-26-17]).

So far Trump has weakened, delayed, or rolled back, without scientific consultation, some 50 science-based regulations, giving us increased formaldehyde leakage from wood, poultry inspection lines ramped up to hazardous speeds, waterways polluted by coal mine waste, relaxed rules for fracking and ground water contamination, decreased standards for mercury exposure, continued use of a brain-damaging pesticide, etc.

More: Why Iron County should care about Utah ballot initiatives

Federal climate scientists have been barred from attending conferences (one was to have been a keynote speaker) and discouraged from discussing their work with “outsiders.” Zinke even dragged a National Park director from California just to reprimand him for tweeting about climate change.

Zinke’s reassignment of 50 Interior scientists is under investigation by the GAO for possible procedural errors (and political motivation?). Backlash prompted Zinke, with remarkable hubris, to complain that 30 percent of his crew were “not loyal to the flag.”

Support was withdrawn from already-approved studies, including one for risky but promising energy projects that industry would never fund. One ongoing National Academy of Sciences study on effects of mountaintop coal mining on nearby residents and another on improving inspections of off-shore drilling operations were abruptly halted.

EPA grants must now be reviewed and approved by a political appointee with no scientific expertise.

More: Trump is a danger — and that's not 'fake news'

Career employees are alarmed, and morale is low. Some at CDC have advised colleagues to stop using certain terminology in budget documents. This wasn’t a “ban,” as was widely reported, but rather a desperate attempt to make requests more palatable to non-scientist reviewers (Slate, 12-21-17).

Fearing reassignment of research efforts from earth- to deep space-monitoring or loss of funding for critical projects, some NASA scientists now talk about satellites used for studying “weather” rather than “climate.”

These Departments rely on scientific advisory boards to identify and prioritize information used in policy-making. Pruitt plans to ban scientists with current EPA grantees from serving and to put a 3-year post-tenure moratorium on applying for grants. The flaw (deliberate?) in Pruitt’s rationale? EPA grants are awarded only to the very best scientists, exactly those needed to inform policy decisions.

Two bills currently working their way through Congress would codify these changes and add other unnecessary procedures on the misleading grounds of “transparency” and “scientific integrity.”

Finally, Pruitt and Perry advocate using “red team-blue team” debates between climate scientists and science deniers in policy decisions, further minimizing the influence of well-established scientific principles.

Imagine the consequences of government activities based on unanalyzed, unscientific, incomplete, or faulty information. Alarmist? Maybe, but we should all be paying attention.

Leigh Washburn is a member of the Iron County Democrats.