Are proposed EPA rules a move toward transparency or an attack on science?
How publicly accessible does science need to be in order to be reliable?
A proposed rule that could severely limit the scientific studies the Environmental Protection Agency can use when formulating policy is being hailed by some conservatives as an important safeguard to ensure transparency, with the proposal’s author, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, declaring that “the era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end.”
But the proposal’s opponents see it as simply the latest salvo in a growing war on science, one that is eroding the public’s trust in science and undermining policy decisions.
Science, particularly the sort of environmental and public-health science that forms the basis for many of the EPA’s most important regulations, has often stood at the center of controversy. But many observers worry that the politicization of science is on the rise.
“There’s been
