EPA scientists axed by Pruitt/Trump; a brief analysis

Imagine being on a committee or board, let’s say of airplane safety engineers, composed of various scientists that are the tops in their field from a mix of backgrounds and complementary strengths that is tasked with ensuring that any new information, processes, etc. result in safe and reliable aircraft.  You are to relay all findings and suggestions to corporate executives for review so they can make well-informed decisions.  Now, imagine what your response would be if you were told that half of the engineers on your board were going to be replaced with ‘industry insiders’ whose purpose on the committee was to evaluate the impact any findings would have on the bottom line of the company.  Obviously, it makes absolutely NO SENSE AT ALL! 

1)      These insiders would be replacing an important mix of scientists that work to see all scientific angles of an issue.

2)      The committee doesn’t actually make final decisions on regulations.  They only put on record their findings based on the science and pass along their suggestions.

3)      By incorporating the insiders you’re not only diluting the important science aspect, you’re making important, potentially unsafe, decisions because of being swayed by the financial implications stated in a report that should be fully about detailing vital safety impacts only.

This is exactly what our President has started to do this week after dismissing half of the scientists on the EPA Advisory Board.  It’s as if the President and Scott Pruitt don’t know how science and scientific committees work, which wouldn’t be surprising, or they are just hoping that the general population doesn't.  What’s worse, is that President Trump’s die-hard supporters ingest and internalize his words as truth without being informed with facts based on reality.

Let’s break down the various arguments I've heard from the supporters of this move:

-          “There needs to be industry insiders/business people on the board from the industries being impacted.”

o   NO, NO, AND NO!!  A scientific review board comes up with impartial suggestions based on their findings of SCIENCE with no bias.  That is the underlying basis of sound scientific research.  The board is formed of a purposely diverse group representing academics, civil society, non-governmental organizations, municipal and state governments, and the private sector.  The academics who lead labs and perform research is a fundamental component, as is everyone else.

-          “Well, these scientists ARE biased.  They get paid to do their research by the very government funding they represent.”

o   NO, NO, AND NO!!  First, members go through strict ethics and conflict of interest compliance procedures.  They are REQUIRED to state any conflict of interests that they might have (as is the norm in proper science – shouldn’t that be the same for the President, as well?  I digress) and they must reach CONSENSUS on their SHARED agreement when putting together their reports. (Again, seems like the government and this administration could learn something from science and should be following these rules, no?  They definitely should not changing them!)

o   Secondly, they strictly CAN NOT receive funding by the EPA - specifically to avoid any conflict of interest!

o   Besides, putting industry insiders on the board WOULD be inserting obvious bias.

-          “These scientists were nearing the end of their 3-year term and it’s normal for those contracts to not be renewed.”

o   NO – what’s not normal is to not keep the scientists on for their normal two-term cycle.  In addition, these scientists were told/led to believe that their contracts would be renewed by the administration earlier this year!  That’s not the way I’d want my company to be run.

-          “This board just rubber stamps the EPA’s unreasonable regulations that hamper industry productiveness.”

o   NO – They have NO involvement in the passing of regulations, or even reviewing them.  They review science and scientific output and provide suggestions to research and development based on that.

-          “The President cares about science.  All of the criticism is overblown and dramatic nonsense from the liberals.  He just wants more variety represented.”

o   NO – that holds no muster when he is proposing an 84% budget cut to scientific review boards, which is most often used to bring in outside scientific experts to help with important decisions, has marginalized and ignored their suggestions, and can’t realize that the board is already set up to have the necessary variety.  And, the criticism is coming from much, much more than just the liberals.

Some people want to pull climate change into the talking points, but in reality it shouldn't matter if you believe in it or not.  Either way, it doesn't affect the board's work.  They give feedback on the facts that they find.  Period.  Remember, it was Exxon (yes, Trump administration Rex Tillerson's very own company) that knew about climate impacts and yet ignored warnings as well as their very own climate models.  Yet, these are the types of business insiders that this administration wants on the board.  (Side note - Tillerson is actually on recent record as now acknowledging that climate change is a problem).

One more time:  the VERY POINT of these committees is to hit an issue from all different scientific angles to make recommendations based on these facts.  Biasing these suggestions with industry insiders only compromises the purity, soundness, and reliability of the board’s findings.  Once you understand how these boards function, it's not hard to read through the political b.s. that is being propagated to the public.

Pruitt has been forthright about the fact that the EPA’s primary constituents, under the Trump administration, are going to be industry, not the public, Rosenberg said. “If they are proposing that the decisions not be based on science, what is it they are proposing they be based on? The alternative is pure politics. Who has the most influence? That’s the wrong way to go. You don’t want to set a precedent that we make decisions based solely on influence in politics,” he argued. *

The EPA’s stated task is to protect the health of the human population and the environment.  But, if there is one thing this administration is showing over and over, it is that for them it’s about one thing plain and simple; GREED.  GREED at the expense of ANYTHING else.  Forget morals.  Forget safety.  Forget health.  The rich and powerful need to be able to make their money.

*https://knpr.org/npr/2017-05/scientist-reacts-his-dismissal-epa-scientific-board
*http://www.businessinsider.com/rex-tillerson-exxon-knew-2017-1
*https://thinkprogress.org/epa-makes-room-for-industry-scientists-237f4038f1ab