On March 18th, The Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 (H.R. 1030) passed the House 241-175, along an almost party line. 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 Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, who introduced the bill and the 28 other cosponsors, 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 letters to Congress AAAS and ASA expressed concerns that this bill will prohibit the EPA from using scientific data which could not realistically be reproduced such as data from large or long duration longitudinal studies, one-time events, or data gathered in real-time, such as the data collected following the Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill. AAAS and ASA also reiterated their support for a robust, transparent scientific process to inform EPA actions.
The bill also 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. Rep. Clark (D-MA), Rep. Kennedy III (D-MA) and Rep. McGovern (D-MA) introduced an amendment, which was voted down 184-231, to address this concern. Rep. Clark stated, “A great deal of important research, particularly related to public health, is based on sensitive personal information that this bill would exclude from consideration. This limit poses an impossible choice for the EPA: disregard critical research, even when it has been subject to rigorous evaluation and peer review, or violate the privacy of volunteers.” If it had passed, their amendment would have allowed the EPA to “rely on any peer-reviewed scientific publication when making rules, even if its data is not publicly available.”
Opponents of the bill are also concerned about a new provision added to this year’s version of the bill that authorize only $1 million per year to the EPA to implement the new requirements, which the Congressional Budget Office has calculated will cost $250 million per year to implement, even with the EPA reducing its number of studies by half. Rep. Edwards (D-MD) introduced an amendment to authorize the full $250 million to the EPA annually from FY16-FY19 to conduct the activities required by the bill, but it failed to make it on the final House bill, being voted down 164-254. Rep. Edwards stated, “It is totally absurd to tell an agency to do $250 million of work with $1 million.”
A companion bill in the Senate, S. 544, introduced by Senator Barrasso (R-WY) with seven cosponsors, is waiting for review by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The President has threatened to veto the bill, stating it “would impose arbitrary, unnecessary and expensive requirements that would seriously impede the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) ability to use science to protect public health and the environment.”
- Karen Paczkowski, GSA Science Policy Fellow