Politicians with industry connections are trying to undermine US pollution laws using open access and conflict of interest arguments

The US Congress is carrying out a sneak attack on science. Under the cover of “reform” and “accountability”, Republican congressional leaders are pushing policies that hamstring the Environmental Protection Agency and make it nearly impossible for the government to use science to protect the public interest.

These opponents of reason can’t repeal the pollution-reducing, pro-health Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act – which they claim cost big industry too much – so they are trying to render the rules impotent by dismantling their scientific foundations.

Take the blandly named EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, passed on 17 March. It requires the agency to include more scientists from the industries it regulates on its board, but discourages academics from describing their own research. It also bars scientists from serving (pro bono) on the EPA’s advisory board if they have received an EPA grant within the last three years.

This turns the concept of conflict of interest on its head. It suggests EPA funding leads to bias, while that from fossil fuel or chemical companies doesn’t.


Catch-22

Then there’s the Secret Science Reform Act, passed on 18 March. This bill forbids the EPA from using scientific studies to inform its regulations unless all raw data and all other information pertaining to those studies are published. In practice, that prevents the EPA from using research based on private medical data that cannot and should not be made public, or data covered by intellectual property or confidential business information protections.

Even if these studies are peer-reviewed and public, the EPA can’t move forward with regulations based upon that science if the raw data can’t be released. It’s a catch-22: you can’t regulate unless you provide the raw data, but you can’t provide the raw data, therefore you can’t regulate. Congress is trying to dress this up as a pro-open access measure, but open science advocates are against these bills.

As if that wasn’t enough, there are other congressional measures to fear. In January, the House Science Committee added a new rule to show it means business. Texas Republican representative Lamar Smith, chair of the committee, now has unilateral power to issue subpoenas or take depositions from scientists without consulting colleagues on the Democratic side.

Will scientists who work on climate or the effects of pollution be dragged into legal proceedings to defend research decisions? Should we write legal retainer fees into grant applications?

Not about accountability

I’ve served on science advisory boards, done research backed by federal grants and worked as a federal agency scientist, and I can tell you these bills don’t promote accountability – they put science at the mercy of politics and interfere with long-standing, bipartisan laws that protect public health and the environment.

These bills create a disincentive for scientists to research controversial issues, seek federal grants or serve on advisory boards. It’s a way to push them out of public service and engagement, and all because some politicians and their powerful industry constituents don’t like what the science shows.

The research community should be up in arms about these actions – but so should anyone who cares about using the best information to make public policy. Science matters, and we need to be aware that it’s under attack.