The Secret Science Reform Act of 2014 H.R. 4012 advanced through the House on November 19, 2014 by an almost party-line vote of 237-190. The bill prohibits the EPA from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating a rule, regulation or any “covered action” unless all scientific and technical information used to inform the action is publicly available to allow reproducibility by independent analyses.
The bill’s supporters, including its sponsor Representative David Schweikert (R-AZ), contend that the EPA conducts research in a secretive fashion, and that the public cannot properly assess the basis for EPA actions. However, science organizations, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the American Statistical Association (ASA), have expressed serious concern over the bill, stating it would prevent the EPA from making well-informed decisions by prohibiting the use of data that cannot be reproduced. In a letter to Congress AAAS indicated particular concern that this bill will prohibit the EPA from using scientific data from longitudinal studies that are so large or of such long duration that they could not realistically be reproduced. The letter also expresses concern that scientific data from one-time events or data gathered in real-time, such as the data collected following the Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill, would be impossible to reproduce and thus prohibited from use by the EPA under the bill. Data that is prohibited by law from release to the public is excluded from this requirement. However, in a letter to Congress ASA points out that the bill does not address how or if the EPA would be allowed to use data collected under confidentiality pledges, and if so how this data would be kept secure. AAAS and ASA also reiterated their support for a robust, transparent scientific process to inform EPA actions.
Ranking Member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) expressed concern that requiring the EPA to base actions on restricted data would corrode rather than strengthen the integrity of the underlying science. Representative Johnson also notes that EPA actions that do not use the best scientific analyses possible may lead to more court challenges to EPA actions, creating delays in implementing vital public health protections.
After passing the House this bill was sent to the Senate, where it is waiting for review by the Committee on Environment and Public Works. The President’s senior advisors stated they would recommend a veto in a Statement of Administration Policy.
- Karen Paczkowski, GSA Science Policy Fellow