The environmental radicals have mounted a write-in campaign against EPA’s proposal to ban the use of secret science to justify new regulations. Please post comments supporting the ban here . This Regulations.gov website also includes the proposal, supporting documents and selected prior comments.

Commenting is easy. Just click on the “Comment Now!” button and write or paste in your comment, or add it as an attachment. You will want to provide a name or pseudo-name, which may be published, plus an email address which will not be published.

All you have to say is something like EPA must stop using secret science to justify bad regulations that hurt America. If you want to say more you might consider these CFACT articles as sources for ideas:

1. No more secret science at EPA!

http://www.cfact.org/2018/04/26/no-more-secret-science-at-epa/

“The new rule would ban EPA from relying on any research that doesn’t make its underlying data available for other researchers and the general public to review. It does, however, safeguard individual privacy for such issues as medical confidentiality. The rule will take effect prospectively, ushering in a future of transparency and accountability for the agency charged with the crucial task of protecting our environment.”

2. Ending secret science at EPA

http://www.cfact.org/2018/04/30/ending-secret-science-at-epa/

“Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has proposed to end the longstanding EPA practice of using secretive, often questionable, even deceptive science to support agency policy and regulatory initiatives. His proposed rules will ensure that any science underlying agency actions is transparent and publicly available for independent experts to examine and validate – or point out its flaws.”

3. EPA leads in open science

http://www.cfact.org/2018/05/15/epa-leads-in-open-science/

“EPA’s proposed regulation more-or-less banning the Agency’s use of so-called “secret science” has received a lot of attention, much of it negative. What has largely been missed is the positive impact that this rule might have on open science generally.”

If you cite an article be sure to post the URL, but feel free to paraphrase the text without attribution. Many commenters are saying the same thing.

The negative comment campaign is being led by the so-called Environmental Defense Fund or EDF as it is now called. They like secret science, since it has worked for them in the past. They are generating thousands of negative comments, which we need to counter. Many of these comments make false statements, such as that this regulation will prevent EPA from using aggregated health data on individuals. It actually provides for this case in several different ways.

Comments are due by May 31, 2018 so time is short. Feel free to comment more than once. It is important to be professional and courteous. Comments can be very short but should be serious and grammatically correct. Always include the URL for any references.

You do not need to be a US citizen to comment. In fact this EPA ban on using secret science may well be a model for other Governments to adopt, so it is potentially global in scope.

Speak up in favor of EPA’s proposed ban on using secret science! The Greens are fighting hard against it.