This move further sabotages the ability of the United States to slow the spread of COVID-19, prevent avoidable deaths, and make evidence-based decisions that best protect public health.

The president has indicated multiple times his desire to curtail testing and hide or manipulate the data to downplay the seriousness of this pandemic and bully states and localities into doing what he wants. Indeed, the Trump White House has a well-established track record of suppressing or manipulating data for political purposes on all kinds of issues, including and especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. “We ran the CDC,” wrote four former Republican and Democratic CDC directors last week. “No president ever politicized its science the way Trump has.”

Last week, the president didn’t like the CDC guidance to schools on how to provide safe in-person instruction. So he demanded that the CDC change it. In April, a CDC scientist who questioned the president’s false claims about a so-called miracle drug was fired. Experts such as Dr. Anthony Fauci have been prevented from speaking to the media and undermined by White House political communications flacks. Can we expect this latest move to be any different?

There is little justification for this change in COVID-19 data reporting other than politics. The CDC has always been the organization to collect data, research, and to suggest actions to combat disease, especially infectious diseases. The agency’s very first mission in 1946 was to tackle malaria. The CDC has 70 years of experience creating and maintaining disease surveillance systems.

Data collection processes need to be carried out by independent experts. It is very easy for biases to negatively influence how data are collected, analyzed, and cleaned up in a way that can manipulate the results. HHS staff will undoubtedly be under immense political pressure to utilize misguided methods or engage in full-on manipulation of the COVID-19 data in a way that scientists and the public may not be able to detect.

Further, a failure to make trustworthy data publicly available will hamper research efforts by scientists outside government since a lot of academic research on COVID-19 heavily relies on CDC datasets. It will slow down our ability to respond and make it more difficult to understand what kinds of protection measures are actually working. It will become more difficult to understand and address the disproportionate impact of  COVID-19 illness and death on Black and Latinx people compared to white populations.

This abrupt change also puts more pressure on an already overtaxed medical system. Dramatically changing data reporting policies and processes for health care providers is challenging in the best of times, much less when health care workers and hospitals are already overstretched and struggling to respond to the pandemic. Doctors, nurses, and other health care workers need to be able to focus on caring for COVID-19 patients, not on learning new data reporting procedures that distract from patient care. Creating more confusion right now is almost certain to make an already barely manageable situation worse.

It is beyond despicable that, in addition to fighting COVID-19, we have to contend with Trump administration efforts to take away and politicize the tools we currently have. This reckless power grab will endanger people’s lives. It will make it more difficult for public health departments to keep people safe. It will prevent schools from safely reopening. It will force communities to make decisions without adequate evidence.

That’s why this move must be stopped. The White House needs to back off and allow the CDC to do its job. If they don’t, hospitals and public health institutions must find a way to do it for them even if that means  finding new ways to safely and ethically report data publicly themselves so that we can all benefit from access to this important scientific information.

We need the best, most current information we can get—not the grotesque political maneuvers of an administration that seems content to tell communities that when it comes to the virus, they’re on their own.

Thank you to Anita Desikan and other UCS colleagues for helping to inform this post.

The directive was designed to justify kicking the top independent experts off EPA’s advisory committees so they are more likely to get the answers they want. The EPA selectively enforced the directive and ignored other protocols on issues like air pollution where agency leaders knew the science did not support the policies they wanted to put forward.

UCS, represented pro-bono by Jenner & Block and the nonprofit Protect Democracy, joined an individual advisory committee member in suing EPA to rescind the policy. NRDC and a coalition led by Earthjustice filed separate lawsuits challenging the directive. In March, a federal court of appeals found that the EPA has a responsibility to ensure that committees are protected from special interest influence. The previous month, a different federal court of appeals said the EPA had failed to provide sufficient justification for the scientist ban.

Yet again, the Trump administration failed to provide a justification for a policy they issued. The Supreme Court most recently recognized this in striking down the administration’s DACA policy. The administration’s record in court is remarkably lousy because they repeatedly fail to show their work.

Science advice is treated by EPA’s current political leaders not as an input into policymaking but as a problem to be managed. Since we filed our lawsuit, the EPA has further politicized its science advice processes, completely eliminating some advisory panels, stacking existing committees and boards with industry representatives, and sidelining the agency’s Science Advisory Board.

Unfortunately, while it was in place, the directive had substantive consequences on EPA’s ability to protect public health using the best available science. The EPA has proposed particulate pollution standards that disregard legitimate science advice, instead relying on the inability of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to reach consensus on what a protective standard should be. University of Washington air pollution expert Dr. Lianne Sheppard, a co-plaintiff in the UCS case, was forced off that committee because of this policy.

EPA staff go through applications and make recommendations on who to appoint to its science advisory committees, and with the directive defeated, it is more likely that moving forward EPA will have more qualified candidates to choose from. EPA Administrator Wheeler should heed their advice. While he still has the authority to appoint who he wants, it will now be more difficult for him to ignore independent experts and stack advisory committees with industry representation.

The illegitimate science advice ban now provides Administrator Wheeler no shield. With the policy in place, the top experts couldn’t even apply, so he wasn’t be put in the awkward position of rejecting them. The benefit of independent expertise on EPA’s scientific advisory panels is unquestionable. Now, we’ll be able to better measure if or when the EPA administrator wakes up to that fact.

Today, dozens of good-government, public health, environmental, consumer, and human and civil rights organizations collectively released Restoring Science, Protecting the Public: 43 Steps for the Next Presidential Term [Links: single PDF | PDF portfolio | archive of individual PDFs]. Participating organizations include the Brennan Center for Justice, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Environmental Protection Network, National Center for Health Research, National Parks Conservation Association, Open the Government, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare how the nation suffers when data is not collected and science is sidelined or eliminated from policy decisions. When CDC guidance is doctored and scientists can’t publicly share their expertise, public confusion increases and more people get sick and die. When inspectors general are fired, accountability for bad actors becomes more difficult. When data is not adequate or reliably reported, states, cities, businesses, swimming pools, restaurants, and more lack sufficient information to safely function.

To successfully emerge from the pandemic, we must rebuild not only the government’s scientific capacity but also the public’s trust in government’s ability to provide reliable information and make decisions that protect our health and well-being.

This series of memos provides concrete steps the next administration can take—without significant costs—to make government more effective, efficient, transparent, and accountable. These are principles of good government. They make it more likely that we can keep people safe. They make it easier to reduce health disparities. Recommendations are offered in eight categories:

• Federal advisory committees
• Personnel policy
• Agency scientific independence
• Restoring strength to scientific agencies
• Whistleblower protections
• Scientific communications
• Data collection and dissemination
• Regulatory reform

We will share these recommendations with major presidential campaigns and transition teams. We encourage all who have influence over White House and executive branch priorities in 2021 to read these short documents and take them to heart.

I still strongly believe what I told the House Science Committee when I testified about this legislation last July: decision makers and the public want to hear what experts know, when they know it. We deserve that access. All of the experts at that hearing agreed with that premise, and Republicans and Democrats came together to pass the bill out of committee.

In fact, all modern Democratic and Republican presidential administrations have manipulated and suppressed science for political reasons. We have documented cases dating back to President Eisenhower.

Now, members of both parties are now among the 232 co-sponsors of the Scientific Integrity Act. A bipartisan task force led by the Brennan Center for Justice endorsed it. And the legislation enjoys broad support from good government groups, environmental organizations, public health advocates, and unions.

It’s easy to forget how credible, independent science impacts our daily lives when we are safe and healthy and our environment is clean. Many of us don’t think about the scientists who make sure toys are safe and that our air is healthy.

Yet as soon as things start falling apart, whether it’s through systemic injustice or from a temporary threat, we realize the importance of access to good information. The value of science is not greater in these moments—it’s just more evident.

Science doesn’t dictate policy, but science must inform it. Experts throughout government—at the EPA, at the CDC, at NOAA, at NASA, at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and at many other agencies—are there to make sure that information can serve the public interest. Whether it’s climate change, severe weather, pollution, food safety, or infectious disease, the choices we make to protect ourselves and our communities become harder when we aren’t confident that we can trust what we hear.

Especially now, when we are all seeking information to keep ourselves, our families, and our communities safe, the need for these protections is ever more self-evident. The Scientific Integrity Act is a good and needed step to encourage federal scientists to follow the evidence where it leads and publicly share what they learn.

They since extended that to sixty days. But the people best positioned to respond to this crisis are doctors, public health researchers, and scientific associations. These are the very people who are on the front lines of the pandemic, sharing critical information with the public and saving lives.

We urged the agency, repeatedly, to hold a virtual hearing on the proposal. Each time, they refused. So UCS decided that if the EPA would not do its job, someone would need to do it for them. EPA would get the feedback and the science advice whether they wanted to or not.

We scheduled a public hearing on EPA’s behalf and invited the public to testify. This is highly unusual. We hadn’t done this before and didn’t know what to expect. We didn’t know if anyone would sign up.

But wow, what a response. Dozens of scientists, advocates, and regular citizens showed up ready to share substantive feedback on the proposal and its impact on the EPA’s ability to meet its mission. Earlier this week, we submitted a transcript of each person’s remarks, along with any associated documents, to the agency for review. The EPA must consider every substantive argument made before it can finalize its proposal.

You can watch all three sessions (session one, session two, and session three) and read the transcripts (session one, session two, and session three). There is too much good content to fully summarize. But here are some highlights that jumped out at me:

Former EPA Administrator Bill Reilly

(Session two; testimony begins at 10:48)

“Looking back to the beginnings of EPA the Administrator then, William Ruckelshaus, said he felt constrained by the insufficiency of scientific and health information which he needed to set early standards and criteria. Since that time EPA has given the highest priority to ensuring the integrity of the science on which its regulatory decisions are made. Enormous consequences flow from those decisions — non-attainment of cities which have significant economic reverberations, the confidence of the public in the protection of their health, the trust to comply with difficult and sometimes costly regulations. Other countries watch very closely what we do. I can recall the Chinese chose to abandon their plan to build 10 million refrigerators containing chlorofluorocarbons –ozone depleters — as a consequence of EPA research…What EPA does depends on the confidence of the public, it depends on the integrity of the science basis for its decision-making. Both have been put into question by the current proposed regulation.”

Representative Paul Tonko (D-NY)

(Session one; testimony begins at 34:25)

“This has nothing to do with transparency…This is a thinly-veiled campaign to limit serious and highly-credible scientific research that supports critical regulatory action… Why would a science-driven public agency undertake such a radical departure from existing and widely-accepted scientific standards? EPA presents no evidence at all that peer review, a system that has literally built American scientific might, is failing. In fact, only two out of 10,000 papers are retracted in the United States. The system is strong, the system is fair, and the system leads to positive scientific and public health outcomes.”

Dr. Lisa Patel, pediatrician

(Session three; testimony begins at 15:33)

“I am here to testify because the EPA would in essence create its own avoidable health crisis by moving forward this supplemental rule that would substantially limit the science used to keep our children healthy… This supplemental rule mandates that data used for its internal scientific assessments and rule-making be ‘publicly available,’ a logistical impossibility for studies using PHI [personal health information]… When information from studies using PHI shows is that we should be tightening our regulations to limit air pollution, the EPA can easily ignore these studies to justify inaction or rollbacks that would worsen the health of children… the EPA’s rules have the ability to determine whether a child will live a long life of good health or a shortened life of disease and disability. I urge the EPA to abandon this rule and continue to use the best available science to protect the health of our children.”

Beto Lugo-Martinez, CleanAirNow

(Session one; testimony begins at 1:01:18)

As its misleading name suggests, this rule’s intent and effect is to exclude from consideration scientific studies that examine the health impacts of environmental contamination and toxic chemicals that meet all scientific validity and rigor simply because they rely upon non-public data such as confidential medical information. These studies are possible because the researchers promise to protect communities, protect confidentiality of patients or subject matter participants. Communities have found a way to engage in the conversation with industry and environmental regulators and the people who make the laws. we are using data, quantifiable data and other evidence based information to engage in the conversation to really protect the communities’ best interest. Now that communities have a way to engage in the conversation, beyond simply providing personal stories, now the government is trying to take this away from us. Before it we were called vigilantes and emotional and too soft. Now that we are providing factual hard science, the government wants to exclude science and pick and choose when a rule does or doesn’t apply, that is the opposite of a transparent process excluding specific studies and making it harder to use science to put new safeguards in place. When science-based facts are not taken into account into any permitting or land use decisions or enforcement actions, our community members suffer the most.”

Surili Patel, American Public Health Association

(Session two; testimony begins at 18:51)

The strengthening transparency and regulatory science supplementary rule would greatly limit the research used to inform national action to protect the environment and public health effectively…picking and choosing to admit certain studies would limit a comprehensive picture of the problem and possibly the solution thus perpetuating health inequity. By including influential scientific information within the scope of this rule, EPA restricts its ability to use the best science available in decision making. It also works towards biasing the scientific process and stacking the deck against vulnerable populations.

Deborah Wallace, PhD

(Session one; testimony begins at 56:13)

“The omission of the privacy-protecting studies would greatly diminish the strength of meta-analyses needed for high quality science…The rule would create a massive database on a website, inviting hacking both by parties with commercial interest in laxness of standards and by hackers who are either pranksters or who use ransomware.”

Bernie Golstein, former chairman of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and EPA assistant administrator for research and development

(Session one; testimony begins at 1:17:53)

“Science is a web. Disentangling one part of the web from another is almost impossible… The definitions given in the Supplement are mostly hand waving or not applicable to environmental epidemiology… The lack of agreement in all of the areas I’ve mentioned is not surprising given the complexity and inherent challenges of environmental human health studies. But that is the crucial point, without a clear definition the Administrator is free to cherry pick which studies he or she wishes to call on.”

Nse Witherspoon, Children’s Environmental Health Network

(Session two; testimony begins at 14:10)

This supplemental rule expands which studies…can be excluded even further. It now applies to…all influential science, not just the science used in regulatory efforts. The supplemental rule requires a lengthy and cumbersome reanalysis of already rigorously reviewed and analyzed raw data….this is a lengthy and unnecessary requirement, especially since scientific studies and data analysis undergo rigorous peer review and standard quality assurances and control. And EPA already has a review process in place. All of this additional data analysis and number crunching is a waste of time and will result in delays to public health protections, not to mention the cost of the reanalysis to the agency and to researchers.

Paul Billings, American Lung Association

(Session one; testimony begins at 14:48)

The American Lung Association opposes the proposed rule and we urge EPA to withdraw it. Studies that link air pollution with premature death would be excluded or diminished as the agency develops its regulations or influential scientific information… Make no mistake, the tobacco industry and polluters want to undermine science to stall public health safeguards. In addition to the specific limitations…it may also have a chilling effect on research. When patients fear their confidential information will be compromised, or the tobacco industry or some other corporate interest will attempt to manipulate their information… it may stifle or reduce participation in studies. This could have far-reaching negative consequences for public health and the environment.

Vijay Limaye, Natural Resources Defense Council

(Session one; testimony begins at 50:25)

“The proposal is poorly-conceived at a fundamental level and attempts to address a “problem” that simply does not exist. Thoughtful attention is already paid to critically assessing the quality of each study’s methods and results, including the quality of the underlying data from which conclusions are made about the likelihood of causal effects. And no decision at EPA is made on the basis of a single study alone; rather, scientists painstakingly assemble and assess the evidence. This approach is working– but the supplemental proposal would upend it by enabling political meddling in the agency’s work.”

Zygmunt Plater, Boston College Law School

(Session three; Testimony begins at 42:35)

“The practical effect of this proposed rule, with its Orwellianly-cynical “transparency” label, would clearly be to deter and diminish stringent public health and safety protections…It’s a cynically clever trick: The agency’s political leadership knows that virtually all safety studies with human subjects ethically must shield the individual subjects’ privacy. It’s quite clear: the supposed necessity of inspecting all human-subject details would largely come in attacks by the potentially-harmful regulated industries themselves, in attempts to block EPA regulations.”

For the first two decades, these attempts came directly from industry and occasionally from Congress. But the attacks began from inside once polluter-friendly appointees took over the agency at the beginning of the Trump administration. They know they can’t win on the science, so they want to exclude it.

Below is a timeline of attempts to restrict how science is used at EPA. If you see anything missing, drop me a note.

Tobacco lobbyists outline and advance strategy

December 23, 1996: Tobacco industry lawyer Chris Horner writes a memo for his clients at RJ Reynolds Tobacco outlining a strategy to “reform agency science” at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  The memo lays out their proposed plan to “construct explicit procedural hurdles that the Agency must follow in issuing scientific reports.” The goal of this proposed plan? To prevent the EPA from enacting regulations to protect public health. The tobacco lawyer advised that in order to limit EPA’s rulemaking authority, a process should be established to require that the EPA only consider science that is “transparent” and “able to be reproduced.”

July 18, 1997: EPA passes new air pollution standards (1997 NAAQS for Ozone and Particulate Matter) under the Clean Air Act after a review of the available scientific evidence. Two studies that provided evidence for this decision were the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Prevention Study II. Both studies showed that exposure to fine particle air pollution was linked with increased mortality and adverse health effects.

October 21, 1998: A rider, known as the ‘Shelby Amendment’, was added to the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1999 and passed through Congress. This rider mandated that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) “require federal agencies to ensure that all data produced under a federally funded award will be made available to the public through the procedures established under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).” This amendment was the culmination of efforts from the House committee to gain access to the data that provided the scientific basis of Environmental Protection Agency regulations to strengthen national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter in 1997.

October 8, 1999: OMB released a revised version of the rule that defined the kinds of ‘data’ that would be made accessible and excluded personal and business-related confidential data.

July 2000: The Health Effects Institute, an organization sponsored by both the EPA and the motor vehicle industry, release an independent reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities study. Their report validated the results of the Six Cities study and confirmed the robustness of its analysis.

August 1, 2013: The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee issues its first subpoena in over 21 years for underlying data from the scientific studies that were used to develop air pollution regulations, including the Harvard Six Cities Study. The subpoena is not successful.

November 14, 2013: The House Science Committee holds a hearing titled “Strengthening Transparency and Accountability within the Environmental Protection Agency.” In it, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testifies that the EPA already is and has been embracing transparency through its Scientific Integrity Policy and through rigorous peer review and external advisory committee assessments.

Legislative attempt to restrict science begin

February 6, 2014: Representative David Schweikert (R-AZ) introduces a bill in the House called the “Secret Science Reform Act of 2014 (HR 4012).” This bill is eerily similar to the tobacco memo from 1996 as it also seeks to prohibit the EPA from considering science that is not deemed ‘transparent’ or ‘reproducible.’

February 11, 2014: The House Science Committee holds a hearing titled “Ensuring Open Science at EPA.” One of the hearing’s witnesses is Dr. Tony Cox, an industry consultant who currently chairs the EPA Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, whose testimony belies the reasoning behind the transparency act: to cast doubt on the utility of public health standards, particularly those that seek to limit air pollution.

July 16, 2014: Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) introduces a companion bill in the Senate called “Secret Science Reform Act of 2014 (S. 2613).”

October 3, 2014: The Congressional Budget Office releases its analysis on the “Secret Science Reform Act,” estimating that the cost of implementation would be around $250 million per year for the first few years, with large variances; if EPA were to continue relying on as many scientific studies as it had in recent years, while increasing the collection and dissemination of all the technical information used in such studies as directed by the Act, then implementing the bill would cost at least several hundred million dollars a year.

November 19, 2014: The “Secret Science Act of 2014” passes the Republican-controlled house (237-190). The companion bill (S. 2613) is never voted on by the Senate, and ultimately dies in the Senate.

February 24, 2015: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chair of the House Science Committee, introduces the “Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 (HR 1030).” Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) once again introduces a companion bill in the Senate called “Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 (S. 544).”

March 18, 2015: The Secret Science Reform Act (HR 1030) passes the Republican-controlled House (241-175).

June 2015: The bill (S. 544) dies in the Senate for the second time.

February 7, 2017: The House Science committee holds a hearing called “Making EPA Great Again,” which included discussion on limiting the science EPA is allowed to consider. In the hearing, Congressman McNerney (D-CA) asks witness Rush Holt, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Would the Secret Science Reform Act lessen the influence of politics in the scientific process?” Dr. Holt responds: “No, I mean I think it’s fundamentally substituting a politically originated revision of the process for the scientific process that has grown up over the ages.”

March 8, 2017: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduces the “HONEST Act (HR 1430),” a bill with a new title but the same core substance as the Secret Science Reform Act.

March 28, 2017: A group of science organizations, including AAAS and several universities, send a letter to House Majority Whip McCarthy in strong opposition to the HONEST Act.

March 29, 2017: The “HONEST Act” passes the Republican controlled House (228-194).

June 28, 2017: One of Rep. Lamar Smith’s top staffers on the House Science committee, Richard Yamada, is appointed by President Trump to be deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Research and Development at EPA.

September 12, 2017: Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) introduces the “HONEST Act (S.1794)” in the Senate, but once again, it is never brought up for a vote and dies in the Senate.

EPA takes up effort to restrict science

January 9, 2018: Frustrated by an inability to codify the restrictions, Rep. Lamar Smith meets with EPA administrator Pruitt to discuss how the EPA could implement “the principles of the HONEST Act without legislative action.” The agenda of the meeting, obtained by the Environmental Defense Fund, shows that “The Congressman would like to discuss potential ways EPA could implement the principals of [the “HONEST Act”] without legislative action” given that the bill was not likely to pass the Senate.

March 11, 2018: In a meeting with the Heritage Foundation, Scott Pruitt announces that the EPA will roll out plans to restrict the agency’s use of science in rulemakings. Just like the tobacco lobbyists’ memo and the three failed bills, this proposed rule would also limit the EPA to only consider scientific studies where the underlying data are made public.

March 20, 2018: A link to an “exclusive interview” on the restricted science rule with Scott Pruitt in a partisan outlet is posted to the EPA website in lieu of a press release.

March 23, 2018: EPA refuses to respond to further media inquiries on the restricted science rule, instead directing reporters to Pruitt’s comments made in the interview. The National Association of Science Writers board sends a letter to EPA objecting to this behavior, calling it “unprofessional and unethical.”

April 17th, 2018: The Union of Concerned Scientists obtained EPA records through three separate FOIA requests that show EPA officials—political appointees who had either worked for Lamar Smith or the chemical industry—were more concerned about the release of industry trade secrets than they were about sensitive private medical information. No concerns were raised about the policy’s impacts on public health protections, nor were there suggestions to receive feedback from the scientific community, which had previously slammed the proposal.

April 19, 2018: EPA sends the proposed restricted science rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review, a process that must be completed before the rule can be finalized by the EPA.

April 20, 2018: Meanwhile, after extensive media scrutiny of the contents of the EPA records, the EPA removes the records from the publicly accessible portal on which they were originally posted, claiming that exempt information was inadvertently included.

April 21, 2018: After going through the documents and removing private information, UCS re-posts these FOIA documents online, restoring access to the public.

April 24, 2018: Scott Pruitt signs the proposal for the new rule, titled “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,” which like all previous efforts would stop the EPA from using scientific studies that did not make the underlying data publicly available. EPA announces that there will be a 30-day period for public comment and no public hearing. In a breach of established procedure, this occurs before the review by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is completed.

At the signing event, Administrator Pruitt proclaimed: “The science that we use is going to be transparent, it’s going to be reproducible, it’s going to be analyzed by those in the marketplace, and those that watch what we do can make informed decisions about whether we’ve drawn the proper conclusions or not.” Also present at the event was Steve Milloy, a former tobacco lobbyist who served on President Trump’s EPA transition team and runs a website dedicated to denying climate science. Milloy, who claims to be the intellectual architect of the restricted science rule, told a New Yorker reporter, “Steve Milloy wins! Yay!” Claiming that evidence of adverse health impacts of air pollution were “extremely dubious,” Milloy also told the reporter, “I do have a bias. I’m all for the coal industry, the fossil-fuel industry.”

April 25, 2018: The OIRA review is listed as complete. Not only is this done after the Administrator has already signed the rule, but it also is done on a grossly expedited timeline—4 days (of which only one to two were work days), when the average OIRA review takes 52. Furthermore, while OIRA is only tasked with weighing in on cost-benefit analysis and overlap of a rule with other agencies, this OIRA review added 4 pages to the rule and substantively changed its scientific content.

Law professor Wendy Wagner’s work was cited by EPA in support of the rule. She tells the Atlantic: “I really don’t know what the problem is that they think they’re fixing… They don’t adopt any of our recommendations, and they go in a direction that’s completely opposite, completely different. They don’t adopt any of the recommendations of any of the sources they cite.”

April 27, 2018: In a “highly irregular” move, the White House changes its official timeline to show that its OIRA review of the proposed rule had been finished a day before EPA Administrator Pruitt signed it, instead of one day after.

May 4, 2018: The editors of five major scientific journals including Science, Nature, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Science issue a joint statement opposing the restricted science rule.

The editors write: “It does not strengthen policies based on scientific evidence to limit the scientific evidence that can inform them; rather, it is paramount that the full suite of relevant science vetted through peer review, which includes ever more rigorous features, inform the landscape of decision making. Excluding relevant studies simply because they do not meet rigid transparency standards will adversely affect decision-making processes.”

May 22, 2018: After significant public outcry from both the private sector and scientific and public interest organizations, EPA announces that it will extend the public comment period through August 16, 2018 and hold a public hearing.

June 28, 2018: The EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), which has not been consulted on the restricted science rule, requests that they be allowed to weigh in. In their letter to Administrator Pruitt, the SAB writes: “Although the proposed rule cites several valuable publications that support enhanced transparency, the precise design of the proposed rule appears to have been developed without a public process for soliciting input specifically from the scientific community.”

July 5, 2018: Scott Pruitt resigns from EPA after numerous ethics scandals.

July 16, 2018: Nearly 70 public health, medical, academic, and scientific groups release a statement strongly opposing the proposed rule.

That same day, the National Academy of Sciences expresses concern about the rule.  “The potential negative consequences for EPA’s ability to take needed regulatory action require more careful examination. We strongly encourage EPA to seek objective, expert guidance on the complexities of this rule and how it would be implemented. As independent and trusted advisers to the nation, the National Academies would be pleased to assist you in this effort.” The EPA never followed up on this offer of assistance.

July 17, 2018: More than 40 people, including representatives of science groups, business groups, public health groups, and academia; members of Congress; and individual advocates speak at a hearing at the EPA headquarters on the EPA proposed rule. Only four witnesses support the rule, one appears ambivalent, and the rest testify in opposition.

August 16, 2018: By the time the comment period for the proposed EPA rule closes, almost 600,000 public comments were submitted, the vast majority of which were in opposition.

October 3, 2018: Email exchanges obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists and reported by the Washington Post show that EPA’s Office of the Science Advisor was left out the process of drafting the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule, even while the office’s director had made himself available to participate.

October 5, 2018: President Trump nominates former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler to take over as EPA administrator.

February 26, 2019: The Senate confirms Andrew Wheeler to serve as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency by a narrow vote (52-47).

April 19, 2019: Ten months after the EPA Science Advisory Board asked to review the restricted science rule, Administrator Wheeler finally requests feedback, but only on a narrow slice of the rule.

June 5, 2019: While discussing the restricted science rule at an EPA Science Advisory Board meeting, Administrator Wheeler suggests that EPA should be more like the Food and Drug Administration and use a “double-blind standard for everything.” This comment demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of how science works, as it is neither ethical nor possible for scientists to attempt double-blind studies that would expose people unnecessarily to pollution or harmful chemicals.

September 19, 2019: Administrator Wheeler testifies before the House Science committee and says the EPA is still working through the ~600,000 comments and announces a plan for the EPA to release a supplemental to the proposed rule sometime in early 2020.

November 11, 2019: The New York Times obtains and publishes a draft of the proposed supplemental regulation. In their report on the EPA’s attempt to limit science, the Times shows that the EPA plans to widen the scope of the previous rule. Stephen Milloy confirms that “the original goal was to stop EPA from relying on [the Six Cities study and the 1995 American Cancer Society study] unless the data is made public… The reality is, standards are not going to be tightened as long as there’s a Republican in office.” The supplemental rule was submitted to the White House before the EPA Science Advisory Board could weigh in on the original proposal.

November 13, 2019: The House Science committee holds a hearing to discuss the proposed rule and raise awareness about concerns among scientists and public interest advocates. Not a single witness would support the proposal. “The goal should not be transparency or bust,” said the Republican-invited witness Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “If the proposed rule were enacted, thousands of studies would be excluded from the EPA’s evaluation when determining standards, policies and programs to keep us safe,” said MichaelJFox Foundation CEO Todd Sherer.

November 26, 2019: The editors of Science, Nature, PLOS, PNAS, Cell Press, and The Lancet issue a joint statement expressing continued concern about the rule. “Discounting evidence from the decision-making process on the basis that some data are confidential runs counter to the EPA stated mission “to reduce environmental risks…based on the best available scientific information,” they write.

December 10, 2019: E&E News reports on a draft memo from Administrator Wheeler that would limit the ability of the EPA Science Advisory Board to decide what issues merit review and scrutiny. The move is widely recognized to be retribution for the Science Advisory Board’s decision to do a full review of the restricted science rule.

December 31, 2019: On New Year’s Eve, the EPA quietly releases a draft EPA Science Advisory Board analysis that tears into the EPA proposal, calling it a “license to politicize the scientific evaluation required under the statute based on administratively determined criteria for what is practicable.” The Board also says, “There is no justification in the Proposed Rule for why the EPA finds that exiting procedures and norms utilized across the U.S. scientific community, including the federal government, are inadequate.”

February 25, 2020: Administrator Wheeler finalizes the memo that takes away the ability of the EPA Science Advisory Board to collaboratively decide which proposed rules require the board’s scientific expertise, demonstrating his displeasure at the SAB’s review of the restricted science rule.

February 26, 2020: The Hill reports that the White House is reviewing a similar policy to restrict the use of science at the Department of Interior.

March 18, 2020: The EPA formally publishes the supplemental rule in the federal register, giving the public 30 days to comment as the COVID-19 pandemic rages. Tens of millions of people are sheltering in place, and many of the top experts whose work is most relevant to EPA analyses are busy fighting the pandemic. UCS and many other organizations, plus 75 members of Congress, ask the agency to hold virtual public hearings and extend the comment period.

March 25, 2020: UCS announces that we will hold a virtual hearing on EPA’s behalf after the agency refuses repeatedly to hold one.

April 2, 2020: EPA announces it will extend the public comment deadline by 30 days to May 18 but continues to refuse to hold virtual public hearings.

April 14, 2020: Dozens of doctors, public health advocates, former EPA employees, regular people, and Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) provide public comment at the hearing UCS convenes on behalf of EPA. “What EPA does depends on the confidence of the public, it depends on the integrity of the science basis of its decision-making. Both have been put into question by the current proposed regulation,” said Bill Reilly, who served as EPA administrator under George H. W. Bush.

April 24, 2020: The EPA Science Advisory Board releases its final recommendations report on the original rule, which does not address the additional problems raised in the supplemental. Among the board’s many criticisms: meeting the requirement of public accessibility “would be enormously expensive and time consuming at best and could be expected to result in the exclusion of much of the scientific literature from consideration…”

A safe, fair, and accessible election increases the likelihood that elected leaders will be more responsive to their constituents than special interests. So this is not a post about electing science-friendly candidates. This is a post about making sure our election system works during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The recent gutting of the Voting Right Act led to more restrictive election policies in several states. The president has routinely misrepresented how elections work. And more opportunity for mischief comes from those who set up election laws and rules, not those who want to exercise their right to vote.

Here are five facts about US elections that you should know:

1. Disenfranchisement is associated with poor health outcomes. States with more restrictive voting laws have more illness and premature death. More people get sick and more people die from environmental threats in states with more hurdles to voting and where gerrymandering is strong. Lower voter turnout is linked with poorer health and more exposure to environmental threats.
2. Several states have passed laws in recent years to prevent students from voting. Fortunately, other states are going in the right and opposite direction, and need encouragement. And despite these restrictions, student voter participation doubled in the 2018 midterm elections compared to 2014.
3. Students in physical science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) vote at lower rates than their peers. Those who study business, humanities, and education vote more. Don’t assume that because you vote, your peers do too.
4. States need $4 billion to carry out a safe and fair election in November. The latest coronavirus stimulus package contained $400 million for election improvements. To date, 45 states have already applied for these funds. But experts believe states need ten times that amount to give everyone the chance to vote in November, and are working hard to advocate for it. $4 billion is less than seven percent of the $60 billion package the airlines recently received.
5. Bipartisan support is strong for making it easier to vote. Earlier this week, Republican and Democratic leaders made passionate appeals in a live event for immediate action to secure the November election. The event was sponsored by the nation’s leading civil rights organizations, the League of Women Voters, and hundreds of other civic organizations including UCS.

Science and politics are intertwined because science is developed and used by humans. Humans decide what questions are asked, what research is funded, what data is collected, and how the output gets used. So here’s what we are asking you to do:

Register to vote. And if you have a primary coming up and are eligible and able, request an absentee ballot.

Support a functioning electoral system. Push Congress to make money available so that states can carry out safe, free, and accessible elections in the fall.

Take the Science Rising Challenge to build voter power. By participating in the challenge, you can ensure that others in your community who are eligible to vote have the opportunity to do so. And you don’t have to be eligible to vote yourself to participate.

Elected officials who are accountable will be more likely to follow the evidence if the people they represent have sufficient power to either keep them or throw them out. As the COVID-19 pandemic has made blatantly clear, good science-based policy requires leaders who are willing to follow the evidence. And a functioning election system will help ensure those leaders are in place.

The president routinely spreads false and often contradictory information during the daily events, which misleads the public and results in confused state, local, and individual decision-making. Scores of scientists and media critics have begged media outlets not to cover the press conferences live, and some networks have indeed begun to cut back their coverage.

Against both established policy and good practice, the White House often acts as a filter for CDC communications. And this week, the White House played chicken with CNN: air the entire briefing or we will keep CDC experts off your network. Yesterday, when CNN went public after days of muzzling, the vice president’s office backed off.

Then yesterday, the president gleefully tweeted a claim that the “ratings” these events are getting rival The Bachelor and Monday Night Football:

The Wall Street Journal always “forgets” to mention that the ratings for the White House Press Briefings are “through the roof” (Monday Night Football, Bachelor Finale, according to @nytimes) & is only way for me to escape the Fake News & get my views across. WSJ is Fake News!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 9, 2020

People tune in to hear current information from the government about the extent of the epidemic and how to protect themselves and their families. Yet President Trump’s tendency to think of this pandemic as a public relations opportunity, not as a public health challenge, hampers our ability to stop people from getting sick and dying.

The president, of course, is not the only one in the White House with this method of operation. The Trump administration has been rightfully excoriated for failing to provide medical workers with protective equipment. Yet hours after Jared Kushner erroneously said that the federal equipment stockpile was not for states to use, the Department of Health and Human Services changed its website to reflect Kushner’s view. I wonder where that order came from.

We need clear, reliable, consistent, and honest information from experts. And as long as the White House can keep scientists on a leash, we won’t be as prepared as we could be. That’s why we’ve continued to speak out when scientists are muzzled for political reasons, and filed a formal complaint under the CDC Scientific Integrity Policy.

The president seems to care more about his image than the health of all Americans. So, in a vacuum of leadership, it is up to all of us to amplify the messages of public health officials and actual experts so they stick.

For weeks, Black scientists, elected officials, and other leaders have spoken out about disproportionate impacts of public health threats on Black communities, predicting that the same would be true for coronavirus without good data and an appropriate response.

The data are beginning to prove this to be true. Journalists, including the Associated Press and Akilah Johnson and Talia Buford at Propublica, have dug into the numbers that are available and found that COVID-19 impacts could be reflecting long-standing racial disparities in health, housing and economics.

But we still don’t have enough information to adequately protect people. “Scientists understand we can’t solve problems we can’t see, and there’s no problem more urgent than understanding who is affected by this devastating outbreak and making sure everyone can get the testing and treatment they need,” said UCS president Ken Kimmel.

Marginalized and underserved communities understand the consequences of neglect. As HIV/AIDS ravaged gay communities, the Reagan White House was silent on—and privately laughed about—the growing epidemic. Many more people grew sick and died because of an attitude that ranged from indifference to hostility.

So it was welcome news when, towards the end of the Coronavirus Task Force press conference on Tuesday, with the vice president behind him, Anthony Fauci got up to speak from the heart about the need to address health disparities, both now and over the long term. He also warned about the impact of stigma. I typed up a transcript, which starts at 1:25:18:

I just want to make a brief comment to get back to the discussion about the health disparities in the African American community, because it really is very important. And the reason I want to bring it up because I couldn’t help sitting there reflecting about sometimes when you are in the middle of a crisis, like we are now, with the coronavirus, it really does ultimately shine a bright light on some of the real weaknesses and foibles in our society.

And as some of you know, a greater proportion of my professional career has been defined by HIV/AIDS. And If you go back then, during that period of time when there was extraordinary stigma, particularly against the gay community. And it was only when the world realized how the gay community responded to this outbreak with incredible courage and dignity and strength and activism, I think that really changed some of the stigma against the gay community, very much so.

I see a similarity here because health disparities have always existed in the African American community, but here again with the crisis now, it’s shining a bright light on how unacceptable that is, because yet again, when you have a situation like the coronavirus, they are suffering disproportionately. As Dr. Brix said correctly, it’s not that they are getting infected more often, it’s that when they do get infected, their underlying medical conditions, the diabetes, the hypertension, the obesity, the asthma, those are the things that wind them up in the ICU and ultimately give them a higher death rate. So when all this is over, and as we say, this will end, we will get over coronavirus, but there will still be health disparities that we need to address in the African American community.

It’s lamentable that Dr. Fauci did not get into the many complicated reasons that health disparities for African Americans exist in this crisis, such as wealth gaps, a lack of worker protections, overrepresentation in jobs that require close human contact, reduced access to good health care, more exposure to pollution, and hoarding of food and supplies by wealthy people. “Everything I’m hearing so far about how we’re supposed to deal with the coronavirus assumes we all have the same level of affluence,” environmental justice scholar and activist Robert Bullard told UCS Fellow Derrick Jackson.

“Front-line communities feeling the disproportionate impacts of pollution are dealing with serious chronic medical conditions and underlying health problems, and no one seems to be talking about them in a substantive way,” wrote Mustafa Ali on March 17. Ali left EPA in 2017 when he felt the agency was abandoning the environmental justice office he led.

It’s important that health disparities in the context of coronavirus are getting more attention, and we must keep the spotlight shining. We need better data on where disparities exist. And we need action to address the coronavirus pandemic—and all other public health threats with disproportionate impacts—equitably and effectively.

“We need to take these long-standing inequities into account as we take on both the urgent task of managing this crisis now and the work of rebuilding for the future,” said UCS’s Kimmel.

The original 30-day comment period was extended by thirty days to May 18. Yet on that date, many of the scientists and scientific and community organizations most affected by the proposal will continue to be on the front lines of coronavirus response. Others will be caring for kids out of school and family members that are sick.  Thirty additional days is grossly inadequate to allow impacted communities and public health professionals to provide feedback.

During normal times, the government recommends a minimum 60-day comment period for the simplest of proposals. These are not normal times, and this is not a simple proposal. Numerous science and public health organizations (including UCS) pled with the agency to extend the public comment by at least 60 days, plus a 30-day period beyond the end of the national public health emergency. We also asked for virtual public hearings. These pleas have so far been rebuffed.

How you can help

UCS developed a guide to assist you in commenting on the proposal, and if you are able to do so, you should. We are also providing resources and support for writing effective public comments. Please take the time to comment for those who can’t.

Also, the agency still refuses to hold a single virtual public hearing. To ensure that the EPA gets as much feedback as possible, UCS will hosting a virtual public hearing on the EPA’s behalf on April 14. If the EPA won’t do its job, we will do it for them. Scores of people have already signed up for morning, afternoon, or evening sessions. Join them here.

Medical professionals are busy saving lives. The neighborhoods most affected by EPA decisions are busy protecting themselves and are desperately seeking help. Meanwhile daily White House briefings and shifting responses to the epidemic seem to do more harm than good. Moving forward with this proposal now—which has no urgency and dismissed the very epidemiological science we are relying on in this crisis—is an insult to everyone involved in stopping more unnecessary COVID-19 deaths.

As of late March, the Centers for Disease Control’s last press conference was on March 9. For more than two weeks, the White House has seized control over communication around the novel coronavirus, leading to confusion and distraction when we need clarity, focus and unity.

A responsible White House would coordinate a government-wide response to the crisis. They would allow experts to be the public face of that effort, and reinforce the expert advice. Instead, scientists brief the president, cross their fingers and hope for the best, an approach that has been shown to be an unmitigated disaster.

President Trump routinely tells things like he wishes they were, not as they are. We don’t need inaccurate rosy pictures. We need the truth.

Currently, every presidential “press conference” that is carried live immediately hobbles our collective ability to mitigate the coronavirus illness COVID-19. We have already lost valuable time, with some communities downplaying or ignoring the pandemic because of the president. This is aided and abetted both by partisan media sympathizers and by journalists who share misinformation live and correct it later.

The White House has spent the last several days deflecting blame for this crisis, refusing to take any responsibility and doing its best to pin it on China in spite of the xenophobic collateral damage. Yet while the Trump White House isn’t the cause of this pandemic, it certainly is an accelerant.

It is glaringly obvious how many chances the Trump administration had to prepare the country to meet the challenge of a pandemic, but didn’t. Transition teams dismissed pandemic preparations. The White House cut disease surveillance programs and dismantled internal response capability and expertise. They ignored intelligence briefings.

And now, the daily White House events are an exercise in confusion and contradiction. President Trump seems increasingly willing to cast doubt on the need for social distancing in order to prop up the stock market. And his misleading statements about a potential treatment for COVID-19 resulted in some people being poisoned by the drug and caused critical shortages for people who need it.

We need a new approach to sharing the best available information about this pandemic. Carrying the president’s press conference live is now irresponsible. Margaret Sullivan argues in the Washington Post for these events to be delayed and fact-checked. During a pandemic, the media must go farther, and refuse to air information that can be verified as false.

The press must ensure that everyone has access to current information about how to best protect themselves. Fortunately, there is so much expertise domestically that we can tap into, from the CDC to the American Public Health Association. And we can learn from the World Health Organization’s daily press conference and the experiences of other countries to inform our own.

In a vacuum of leadership, it is up to all of us to amplify the messages of public health officials so they stick, everywhere. Public health experts understand how to communicate critical health and safety information in times of crisis. They have practiced for this very moment. A CDC disaster communications guide details evidence-based procedures for building society-wide credibility and trust while communicating ever-evolving information.

Reporters and opinion can supplement information provided directly by the CDC and WHO by continuing to make connections with public health authorities and experts. Is personal protection equipment for medical personnel being provided in sufficient quantities? What are local health departments’ greatest needs? Who is most at risk? How are we protecting marginalized populations? What are the weak links? Where are people meeting the challenge?

That means, in the words of journalism scholar Jay Rosen, “exiting from the normal system for covering presidents.” Just because it happened doesn’t mean it should be amplified.

In the words of the CDC: Be first. Be right. Be credible. These proven practices save lives. But under the thumb of the White House, they are in danger.

We need science, not a political public relations machine. We need to know what the scientists know. Not so that powerful people can hoard information and sell off their stocks, but so all of us can protect our families and our communities.

This pandemic is going to get worse before it gets better. We desperately need an information environment that is consistent and clear and puts evidence first.

This post originally appeared in Scientific American on March 25th, 2020. 

The proposal, which faces universal opposition from mainstream scientific organizations, has been plagued by controversy for nearly two years. The EPA formally published the proposal last week, giving the public until April 17, 2020 to comment.

On April 14, UCS will host a virtual public hearing to give people the opportunity to provide oral comments about the EPA proposal. The hearing will follow the format of previous virtual EPA hearings as much as possible, with morning, afternoon, and evening sessions, and will be webcast through the UCS website.

Register to provide a public comment at the hearing at this link.  

Anyone who signs up will be given up to five minutes to make their comment at one of the three sessions. If you have a time conflict or are without reliable internet access, you may ask someone else to be your proxy and read your remarks.

We are also encouraging people to provide detailed written comments on the proposal. UCS developed a guide to assist people in writing effective comments.

UCS and multiple other organizations and the California EPA have asked the EPA to extend the comment deadline and hold public hearings. We heard back yesterday that the agency does not plan to do so at this time. Yet there is no statutory deadline the EPA must meet.

Many of the public health scientists and organizations best positioned to provide comment are currently working day and night to stop the pandemic. It is lunacy to expect them to be able to provide comprehensive input in this time frame.

In 2018, the EPA dissolved a scientific review panel focused on particulate matter pollution, making it impossible for the agency’s Clean Air Science Advisory Committee to make informed recommendations on appropriate air pollution standards. So UCS helped reconvene that panel, which developed and submitted a detailed analysis of the best available science on particulate matter.

We don’t like doing EPA’s job. It’s expensive and time consuming (our tip jar, if you are so inclined). But EPA needs this input from scientists and the public, and we’re going to make sure they get it.

The ban makes it easier for the EPA to improperly influence its advisory committees at the expense of independent advice that actually reflects the best available science. A February court decision in a different case found that EPA failed to provide justification for the scientist ban.

The First Circuit found that under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the EPA must ensure that its advisory committees are sufficiently balanced so that they can provide independent advice. “FACA clearly requires agency heads at least to consider whether new restraints on committee membership might inappropriately enhance special interest influence and to eschew such restraints when they do so,” wrote the First Circuit.

UCS and co-plaintiff Dr. Elizabeth A. (Lianne) Sheppard, a professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health, are represented pro bono by law firm Jenner & Block and legal nonprofit Protect Democracy. “We’re very pleased with the First Circuit’s decision,” said Lindsay Harrison with Jenner & Block. “This case is an important victory for scientific integrity.”

These arbitrary exclusions make it easier for the agency to manipulate the policymaking process and avoid accountability for the decisions they make. Since we filed our lawsuit, the EPA has further politicized its science advice processes, completely eliminating some advisory panels and stacking existing committees and boards with industry representatives.

“Now more than ever, we need scientists and experts guiding policy-making in this country,” said Protect Democracy counsel Jamila Benkato. “In a functioning democracy, those with expertise must have a seat at the table and must not be silenced because elected officials don’t like what they have to say.”

The constraints on science advice have already meant that the agency’s scientific advisory panels have lacked the expertise necessary to inform the EPA’s decision on air pollution standards.

The scientists who are doing the most relevant research should be able to give science advice to EPA on current and emerging public health threats. We look forward to this case moving forward and demonstrating the impact that the scientist ban has on the agency’s ability to protect public health and the environment.

The “supplemental” proposal, which builds on a previous effort, would remove from consideration or downweight thousands of scientific papers by public health scientists when the raw data behind these studies cannot be made public. So while these experts are the front lines of the fight against COVID-19, treating patients, researching vaccines, and educating the public about staying safe, the EPA is trying to push this proposal through with as little criticism as they can get away with.

The American Public Health Association, the American Lung Association, and scores of other scientific organizations all strongly opposed the original proposal and urged EPA to withdraw it. Now, they will have to pull staff away from protecting our country to write extensive comments to stop the EPA from sabotaging itself. It’s a terrible diversion, but it’s one they must take.

In a letter sent this morning, we asked EPA to extend the comment deadline and hold virtual public hearings. The “supplemental” proposal is significantly broader than the original. According to EPA, it would apply not only to studies behind EPA decisions about vehicle emissions, clean air standards, and clean water protections, but also EPA’s own “state-of-science reports, technology assessments, weight-of-evidence analyses, meta-analyses, risk assessments, toxicological profiles of substances, integrated assessment models, hazard determinations, exposure assessments, or health, ecological, or safety assessments.”

The EPA has not articulated a problem it wants to solve. It faces no deadlines. But agency leaders see an opening. They feel compelled to carry out an idea hatched by tobacco industry lobbyists decades ago. The proposal was developed wholly by political staff. The EPA’s Science Advisory Board initially called it a “license to politicize” science and said that it would compromise the agency’s decision-making process.

Because this is written as a supplemental to the original rule, EPA will only take comments that address the changes made in the supplemental. Therefore, you should articulate how your comments respond to the document that was released today.

At a time when seeking out and utilizing cutting-edge research is a life or death situation, the EPA is moving in the opposite direction. What EPA is saying here is that it wants political control over what research is used in any of the agency’s work. Don’t let them get away with this without a fight. Commit to writing a public comment and we will provide you with the resources you need to be most effective. Our comment guide has a link to the public comment page on regulations.gov.

Note: On April 2, EPA moved the public comment deadline from April 17 to May 18. Learn more about why this is insufficient.

“It is not normal to classify discussions about a response to a public health crisis,” an unnamed official from the Republican George W. Bush administration told the wire service. Yet this is President Trump’s approach to nearly every public health and environmental threat: find some way to exclude the experts, stop them from speaking publicly, and make decisions in a vacuum. The deliberate sidelining of public health experts and science leads to bad policy, and ultimately, to more sickness and death.

Instead of prioritizing transparency and facts, the White House is choosing secrecy and confusing contradictions. This has likely allowed the coronavirus to spread more quickly and widely in the United States, with massive consequences for the entire US population and especially for those who contract the disease, plus all of the collateral damage that comes with this kind of large-scale disruption.

People are desperate for accurate and up-to-date information about this pandemic, and CDC experts are doing their best. But their work is in spite of the administration, not in concert with it.

Every day without full transparency means we are less prepared and more vulnerable. Scientists must be at the table to help slow the spread of coronavirus, and they should be able to share what they know without being subject to political control.

I urge all scientists to add their signature to this letter urging the White House to let us hear directly from the experts.

EPA is trying to put its thumb on the scales and discount research it finds inconvenient. They know that the Clean Air Act and other laws require decisions to be based on science, so they are trying to redefine science.

This is “part two” of a rule originally announced by disgraced EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. The proposal was developed by political staff, keeping agency scientists fully in the dark. The EPA wants to weigh the importance of scientific information based on its public availability, not its scientific merit. There may be a political reason to create this distinction, but there is certainly not a scientific one.

Scientific organizations universally opposed the proposal, urging the EPA to withdraw it. The EPA’s Science Advisory Board initially called it a “license to politicize” science and said that it would compromise the agency’s decision-making process. The National Academies of Science offered its help (and was rebuffed). At a recent congressional hearing, not a single non-governmental witness would support it.

The EPA had initially hoped to fast track this act of self-sabotage. But 600,000 public comments from scientists and science supporters required the agency to spend many months doing its best to respond to flaws and missing analysis.

Nearly two years later, the EPA is unable to articulate the problem it is trying to solve. The EPA is still silent regarding how much compliance would cost or who would pay for it. And incredibly, the agency made the original proposal worse by significantly expanding the types of research that it covers.

Tobacco industry lobbyists have wanted these kinds of restrictions for decades. They tried and failed to pass legislation through Congress that would have accomplished this goal. And now, they are trying to get sympathetic political appointees at EPA to do the same.

UCS will soon have more detailed analysis of the proposal, as well as a guide for scientists on filing useful public comments, which are due 30 days from when the rule is formally published. Public comments are helpful both for identifying flaws in the proposal which the EPA is required to consider before finalizing it, and for any future legal challenge.

It’s hard to keep track of the number of Trump appointees who should know basic facts about the coronavirus but don’t. Then yesterday, we learned that the actual public health experts in government would no longer be allowed to speak publicly about the outbreak without the vice president’s blessing. Via The New York Times:

“Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, one of the country’s leading experts on viruses and the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told associates that the White House had instructed him not to say anything else without clearance.”

CDC already has a 65-page manual for communicating complex scientific information to the public in times of crisis. “Clearance” by the White House will not improve this function.

Later yesterday afternoon, the Washington Post reported that government health officials were sent to take in evacuees without proper training or protective gear. An employee who raised concerns has filed a whistleblower complaint after facing retaliation. According to the Post:

“The whistleblower is seeking federal protection because she alleges she was unfairly and improperly reassigned after raising concerns about the safety of these workers to HHS officials, including those within the office of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar. She was told Feb. 19 that if she does not accept the new position in 15 days, which is March 5, she would be terminated.”

As chronicled by UCS’s Anita Desikan, previous Trump administration actions have already compromised government response. The State Department overruled objections by CDC scientists and allowed 14 people who tested positive for the virus to fly together with non-infected people. Global disease surveillance systems were weakened. Initiatives to better understand viruses in animals were shuttered. And National Security Council global health security experts were pushed out the door.

We already know that this White House prioritizes the president’s ego over giving the public the information it needs. Remember Sharpiegate? The president erroneously claimed that Hurricane Dorian would hit Alabama. The professional civil service staff at the National Weather Service clarified that the state was not in the path of the storm. That’s their job.

Rather than admit a mistake, White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney ordered the acting NOAA administrator to repudiate the experts and prevent other scientists from talking about the path of the storm. During the hurricane. Under termination threats, NOAA political appointees buckled, telling professional staff that the even when public safety is concerned, the president is always right.

We know that the president will fire anyone who crosses him, even leaders within the intelligence services, with nary a whimper from his allies in Congress who claim to care about the Constitution. The emperor will be sure that nobody will tell him when he has no clothes.

What will happen now that the White House has a compelling self-interest in downplaying the extent of the coronavirus outbreak in light of the plummeting stock market? Don’t count on Pence, who was overheard complaining that he had “nothing to do.”

There is no substitute for experienced government professional staff who are focused on the public interest. That becomes even more critical in times of emergency. If this censorship and retaliation trend continues, we can expect more gross incompetence in handling the virus’ spread. More people will get needlessly sick and more people will needlessly die.

If the White House has no qualms about misleading the public about weather forecasts, how can we possibly expect them to tell the truth about a major public health crisis? Enough with the political vetting. We need to hear directly from the experts.

The lawsuit was filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The EPA faces two additional lawsuits challenging the ban from UCS and Earthjustice.

In 2017, in an attempt to increase political control over EPA science advisory panels, disgraced former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt banned scientists who receive EPA grants from serving on them. But even though Pruitt had defended the ban as necessary to avoid conflicts of interests, a subsequent investigation showed the EPA’s concern with ethics was highly selective and that it “did not consistently ensure that members . . . met federal ethics requirements.”

EPA leaders have consistently failed to provide justification for the scientist ban. From the decision:

The EPA did not articulate why an outright ban on EPA grant recipients would improve the existing policies that required demanding and continuous conflict of interest reviews, as well as publicly recorded recusals whenever an advisory committee considered research conducted by, or that would affect, a committee member…

The administrative record produced by the EPA provides no basis for finding that membership in an EPA advisory committee by scientists who have received competitively awarded, peer-reviewed EPA grants has caused bias in the work of those committees. For example, the EPA has cited no examples of grant recipients providing biased recommendations in their service as advisory committee members…

The other evidence cited by the EPA fares no better. It primarily consists of correspondence from members of Congress and regional interest groups expressing concern about the composition of certain advisory committees. But, none of this correspondence articulates a belief that an actual or perceived conflict of interest may exist when an EPA grant recipient serves on an advisory committee. An agency must “articulate . . . a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 (citation omitted). Here, the EPA has failed to present any facts at all…

The judge also noted the impact that the advice ban has on individual researchers:

Finally, the EPA ignored the reliance interests of scientists who were both recipients of EPA grants and members of EPA advisory committees. The EPA made multi-year commitments to these individuals, then forced them to choose between the two. Committee members structured their research programs and professional commitments based on the prior EPA policy. This change of policy, therefore, undermined reliance interests and required greater explanation from the EPA. 

The scientists who are doing the most relevant research should be able to give science advice to EPA on current and emerging public health threats. Yet since the three lawsuits were filed, the EPA has further politicized its science advice processes, completely eliminating some advisory panels and stacking existing committees and boards with industry representatives, not independent scientists.

This has already meant that the agency’s scientific advisory panels have lacked the expertise necessary to inform the EPA’s decision on air pollution standards. The directive exemplifies the current EPA’s tobacco-style approach to governance: if the science doesn’t support the decisions you want to make, blow up the process.

We will continue to defend the role of independent science in our public policy-making process. But you have a role to play too. Learn more about how to inject this and other critical science policy topics into the 2020 elections by taking the Science Rising Challenge.

Let’s start at the voting booth. Voting is still the bedrock of democracy. That’s why it will always be a battleground, and why some will fight so hard to disenfranchise others whom they think won’t support their party or candidate.

We created the Science Rising Challenge to make it easy for anyone to register and make a plan to vote. And once you have your own affairs in order, the challenge also provides other opportunities to participate in our democracy in your community or on your campus. (We also have activities and roles for those not eligible to vote but want to enfranchise others and raise the profile of science in this election cycle).

Science supporters building electoral power

We know that navigating this space can be difficult, especially for first-time voters or those who have recently moved. Each state has a different set of laws, rules, and deadlines. And voter suppression laws specifically targeted at students, Native American communities, and other communities of color can further disenfranchise and make it difficult for everyone to exercise their rights.

Yet despite direct attacks on student enfranchisement, there was a huge increase in student voting from 2014 to 2018. Youth-led climate and anti-gun violence movements are developing sophisticated and powerful infrastructure to turn out the vote. And we are going to do our best to ensure that scientists and science supporters show up in massive numbers. This is especially important because STEM majors vote less frequently than their peers.

Elections matter at multiple levels

So much attention is paid to the one person who will take the oath of office on the Capitol Steps on Inauguration Day. But a president is just one small part of a greater story. Federal, state, and local elections determine how we allocate resources and who gets a voice in societal decisions that effect all of us. Our ability to solve the complex environmental and public health challenges of our time will hinge on the leaders we elect and the people they choose to serve in their governments.

In 2014, I ran for local elected office in Washington, DC. In that first election, after a recount, I lost by one vote. I still remember the averted glances of a few neighbors who, for one reason or another, didn’t make it to the polls.

This is our opportunity

We hear a lot about the bad news: ill-prepared and underfunded elections offices, false claims of voter fraud, and incessant social media bots. Yet people are responding in inspiring ways, realizing that strong local networks can help overcome these vulnerabilities. The science community is increasingly awake and engaged. There is a surge in energy and momentum for science-based decision-making.

Big election years bring risks, but also profound opportunities to build power and shape conversations. Participation in the Science Rising Challenge will give you so much more than an “I Voted” sticker. It will help you understand power dynamics in your community, provide you with opportunities to improve the civic-mindedness of science supporters, and grant you the ability to enfranchise those around you.

Now take the first step.

The EPA recently doubled down on its “restricted science” proposal, making it worse and more expansive despite universal opposition from mainstream scientific organizations. EPA leaders, including Administrator Andrew Wheeler, consistently rebuffed advice from scientists on the proposal, but SAB analyzed it anyway.

The scientists, in unusually strong language, pick apart every major component of the EPA’s “restricted science” proposal, echoing two years of analysis from many other scientists and organizations including UCS since the proposal was announced. Among the highlights:

1. The proposal heavily politicizes science. The proposed rule could be viewed as a “license to politicize the scientific evaluation required under the statute based on administratively determined criteria for what is practicable.”
2. The proposal could allow EPA to exclude vast amounts of information from consideration as it makes decisions. Broad implementation of the proposal “would be enormously expensive and time consuming at best and can be expected to result in the exclusion of much of the scientific literature from consideration.”
3. The proposal is a solution in search of a problem. “There is no justification in the Proposed Rule for why the EPA finds that exiting procedures and norms utilized across the U.S. scientific community, including the federal government, are inadequate.”
4. The proposal is so vague that its impact cannot be fully assessed. “Considerations that should inform the Proposed Rule have been omitted from the proposal or presented without analysis…it is not possible at this time to define the implications of the rule with confidence.”
5. The proposal could impede scientific research inside EPA. “Some additional requirements of the Proposed Rule may not add transparency and even make some kinds of research more difficult..”
6. Giving the administrator the authority to include or exclude specific studies could further politicize science. “A case-by-case waiver may exacerbate concerns about inappropriate exclusion of scientifically important studies.”

Even in draft form, this letter from the agency’s own external advisors should be the final blow for a deeply flawed effort by the EPA to place unreasonable and unwarranted restrictions on the science used to inform decisions. Hopefully, Administrator Wheeler will announce publicly that the proposal will be shelved.

Unfortunately, Wheeler’s recent decision to further exert control over Science Advisory Board reviews was almost certainly a direct response to his advisors choosing to review this rule and shows how unwilling the administrator is to consider the critical feedback the agency so sorely needs.

While we await EPA’s next move, the SAB will meet publicly later this month to discuss all four reports and finalize its recommendations. The proposal to restrict the use of science will be discussed on January 21. This two page PDF includes information on how to participate in these meetings, and provide public comments or written statements.

UCS and co-plaintiff Dr. Elizabeth A. (Lianne) Sheppard, a professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health,  are represented by law firm Jenner & Block and legal nonprofit Protect Democracy. In the months since the lawsuit was filed, the EPA has further politicized its science advice processes, completely eliminating some advisory panels and stacking existing committees and boards with industry representatives.

In late 2017, disgraced former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt banned scientists who receive EPA grants from serving on advisory committees. That’s right: the scientists who are doing the most promising and relevant environmental research should not give advice to the agency. The announcement was met with disgust from scientists.

No scientific organization or credible ethicist would say that an EPA grant-funded scientist has a conflict of interest in providing the best available scientific advice to the EPA, in no small part because the EPA does not have a financial stake in the outcome of the research.

Notably, despite its claim of conflict, EPA has appointed to its committees scientists who are well outside the mainstream and more likely to give the agency the advice it wants. EPA has also argued that its policy promotes “geographic diversity”–something that makes no difference in scientific assessments. (You do not become a more or less capable scientist when you move from Oklahoma to Minnesota.)

This is consistent with the tobacco industry ethos with which this EPA operates: if you can’t win on the science, compromise the process. And in fact, it appears that the main target of this and other recent policy changes is the EPA’s air pollution rules: the proposal to restrict the types of science that can be used in policymaking, the science advice ban, and the sidelining of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) are all designed to sabotage the implementation of the Clean Air Act, which requires the agency to set air pollution standards solely based on the best available science. One investigation found inconsistencies in the EPA’s enforcement of the ban, with scientists purged from the SAB and Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) but not from other advisory bodies.

This is About Politics, Not Science

Let’s be clear: the move to ban grant-funded scientists from providing advice to the government is a political decision, not a scientific one. Documents released as part of a similar lawsuit demonstrated that the EPA consulted Republican lawmakers and industry groups in putting together the new standards, while leaving scientific organizations in the dark.

Incredibly, after the directive was implemented, the General Accountability Office found that EPA “did not consistently ensure that members . . . met federal ethics requirements” when appointing new members to the SAB and CASAC. So much for eliminating bias.

The GAO also found that EPA did not consider staff recommendations about the most qualified nominees, which is called for in agency guidelines. CASAC is now led by a man who allows industry groups to edit his research papers.

Last year, the EPA completely disbanded a panel on particulate matter pollution. University of Washington Professor Lianne Sheppard, also a party to the lawsuit, was a member of that panel.  After the panel was disbanded, even a compromised CASAC said it lacked the expertise to evaluate whether current particulate matter standards are protective of public health. This set off a series of twisted and bizarre actions to further misrepresent and sideline air pollution science and scientists from the process of setting adequate air pollution standards.

In protest and in recognition of the importance of its critical role—however sidelined—the panel convened outside of the agency, with logistical assistance from UCS, and recommended that particulate matter pollution protections be strengthened. But, the compromised Clean Air Science Advisory Committee could not come to a consensus around whether it would accept the panel’s recommendations.

The agency faces similar lawsuits filed by Earthjustice and NRDC. The EPA has cut other advisory committees, consistent with the President’s arbitrary executive order to reduce the number of federal advisory committees by one third.

Here are some of my favorites:

The EPA again failed to describe what problem they are trying to solve. Whenever I go to a hearing about a proposal, I expect the agency to be able to talk about the problem the proposal is supposed to address. I heard nothing beyond vague and abstract affirmations that transparency is good. There was still no cogent articulation of why EPA is pursuing this rule. This was true when the rule was proposed two years ago and it’s true today.

All non-governmental witnesses agreed that the rule as written should not move forward. In congressional hearings, both Democrats and Republicans get to invite witnesses. It was therefore significant that all invited witnesses agreed that the rule as written should not move forward. The non-governmental witnesses were also unanimous in affirming that there will often be occasions when the best available evidence is not fully transparent. One of the best lines came from the Republican-invited witness, Brian Nosek: “The goal should not be transparency or bust.”

The EPA seems to want to downplay the significance of the draft supplemental rule, even though it is a substantial departure from the original rule. The draft supplemental rule significantly changes the scope of the original rule and redefines the authority the agency is claiming to possess to move forward. But the agency claims that the draft supplemental only clarifies ambiguous statements in the original rule. This matters because the agency wants to limit public comment on the supplemental rule so it can finalize the rule in 2020.

The rule has consequences for both science and how we make decisions in a democracy. In less than four minutes, Rep. Sean Casten highlighted the tobacco industry origins of the proposal and explained how the proposal could impact not only future public protections but also those already in place. “When we politicize the Constitution we put our Republic in jeopardy, and when we politicize science we put our species in jeopardy,” he said. Watch it on Youtube or on Twitter below.

During @HouseScience’s hearing on this proposed rule, I asked Dr. Orme-Zavaleta from @EPA, if this rule would be applied retroactively because the @EPA has the power to change any regulations it deems necessary & is scheduled to do so. Her answer confirmed my worst suspicions. pic.twitter.com/KZHas59RhG

— Rep. Sean Casten (@RepCasten) November 13, 2019

The EPA witness couldn’t add much because the rule is being driven by political appointees above her, not scientists. The EPA witness repeatedly said she wasn’t involved in the original rule development, and couldn’t or wouldn’t comment on who put it together. She also couldn’t or wouldn’t specifically say who was involved in putting together the supplemental rule. We already knew that the EPA Science Advisor hadn’t even read the rule when it was publicly announced. Remember, this is a political rule, not a scientific one.

Many, many interests—from the military to the nation’s top scientific organizations—have significant problems with the rule. Oversight Subcommittee Chair Mikie Sherrill brought up concerns that the Department of Defense had with the original rule. Other members of Congress brought up the sustained and universal opposition of scientists and scientific organizations to the rule. They repeatedly suggested that EPA get advice from the National Academies, which it has not yet done. And see this great letter from Flint pediatrician Mona Hanna-Atisha about how EPA’s approach to science impacts vulnerable communities the most that was introduced into the record by Congresswoman Haley Stevens. All the EPA witness could say is that comments are still being considered.

Giving the EPA administrator the authority to include or exclude specific studies opens the door to more politicization of science. Several members of Congress expressed concern about allowing the EPA administrator to allow or veto the use of specific studies in the agency’s scientific assessment work. This would absolutely open the door for abuses of power and the substitution of political judgement for scientific judgement.

Congress is dubious that EPA has the authority to move forward with this rule. The EPA is now claiming it can put forward this rule under the federal Housekeeping Act. But as Congresswoman Wexton pointed out, the Housekeeping Act only applies to executive agencies and the military, which does not include EPA.

Michael J. Fox knows the rule would set back science and its use in making policy. “If the proposed rule were enacted, thousands of studies would be excluded from the EPA’s evaluation when determining standards, policies and programs to keep us safe,” said MichaelJFox Foundation CEO Todd Sherer. Michael J. Fox personally tweeted about the hearing later in the day.

Towards the end of the hearing, one of the witnesses used the phrase dicto simpliciter. As a former student of rhetoric, my ears perked up! Here’s a definition.

A supplemental draft rule obtained by the New York Times shows that the agency is expanding a previous proposal to restrict the use of scientific studies where raw scientific data—including personal medical records—is not available to the public.  The additional “clarifications” in the supplement in effect mean that the EPA would ignore far more research than it originally proposed. And the agency administrator, as a political appointee, still gets to decide what information gets considered and what doesn’t.

The move rebuffs universal urging from scientists and public health organizations to withdraw the previous proposal, and would hog-tie EPA research staff, leading to weaker air and water protections that will make people sicker.

“This is a blatant removal of well-established science from the policymaking process, to the benefit of polluters and at a huge cost to the marginalized communities who face the biggest threat from pollution,” said Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the UCS Center for Science and Democracy. “There’s no scientific reason or public interest to restricting the science that EPA can consider in this way—it will just make the laws that protect public health and the environment nearly impossible to carry out.”

Once the rule is published, the public will have thirty days to provide comment on a narrow set of questions related to a proposal that would completely transform how the EPA makes decisions. No public hearings are scheduled, presumably because the last time they did a public hearing, scientists poked holes in every part of the proposal, essentially calling it some kind of sick joke.

The proposal comes directly from tobacco industry lobbyists, who previously, and unsuccessfully, tried to get Congress to pass similar legislation. The fatally flawed proposal is legally and scientifically indefensible. The EPA now seems poised to make it even worse.

Nearly two years after disgraced Administrator Scott Pruitt announced the proposal, the EPA is unable to identify what problem they are trying to solve. The agency is unable to provide any information about how this radical change to the use of science by the agency would affect public health. There is still no information on how much this unnecessary exercise would cost, nor who would pay for it. The EPA has no clear idea on their authority to do this.

Instead they are  trying to invent, unsuccessfully, both a rationale and a legal mandate. The agency has ignored advice from scores of scientific groups to withdraw the proposal, and rebuffed offers from the National Academy of Sciences to help them improve the evaluation of evidence in policymaking.

That’s because this proposal has nothing to do with science. They want politicians, not scientists, to evaluate the evidence of harm to the public. Administrator Wheeler wants to increase political control over the science-based processes that have been effective at cleaning up our air and water and improving public health for decades.

This entire exercise is designed to exclude certain types of public health studies that demonstrate that pollution makes people sick.

Such a sweeping proposal should not move forward without full review by the National Academy of Sciences and the EPA Science Advisory Board. Both have pleaded to have that opportunity. Yet the new supplemental noticed disregards hundreds of thousands of public comments urging the EPA administrator to withdraw the proposal and detailing the many types of research that would be excluded from consideration if it were to move forward.

Administrator Wheeler and other EPA leaders built their careers working directly for polluters that want to neuter the EPA by blowing up its scientific processes. It’s not likely they are going to start listening anytime soon. It would be easier for the EPA to relax pollution controls by pretending they don’t know that pollution hurts people.

Over the next couple of days, we will delve more deeply into the proposal. But what’s important to know now is that with these handcuffs on, the EPA would fail to identify and assess new public health threats.

In a Wednesday hearing, the House Science Committee will hear testimony from the EPA and public health experts on the rule. I will be there and hope to hear a lot of questions about how the agency would be forced to stand by and do nothing when the science shows that Americans are getting sick.

Some people argue that science is above politics. That science is value-neutral. That science is simply the discovery and delivery of facts. Yet when one turns to the dictionary, politics is defined as the total complex of relations between people living in a society. Politics is all about resources and power over those resources.

After that realization, it’s not a big leap to understand science and politics are intertwined, both inside the research community (which, after all, consists of human beings) and in the greater world. From a variety of perspectives and lived experiences, the eight scientists explore how they found their research being influenced by all kinds of politics. Many also look at how politics impacts the distribution of power within science and in the greater world, which is why so many of these blogs address equity and justice and the need to confront oppression.

Check out the blog series through this tweet thread, on the Sister website, or through the links below.

• Microbial ecologist Janani Hariharan writes about the systems and thinking that marginalize her as a scientist of color. “If science is about the spirit of inquiry and improving humankind’s experiences,” she says, “questioning the systems and institutions where we perform science should fit right in with this spirit.”
• Pharmacologist Andrea Guzman shares her experience pursuing a Ph.D. while so many changes are taking place in her home of Puerto Rico. Without expecting it,” she says, “I found a way to thrive in these two places at once by becoming an advocate and taking action.”
• Zooarchaeologist Alex Fitzpatrick analyzes the slow decolonization of archaeology. “For too long we have been curated by others, objectified in studies, and not given the chance to be the expert,” she writes. “Now, we get an active hand in interpreting our collective past, and becoming our own curators.”
• Chemist and education PhD student Charnell Long comments on racial and gender health disparities and a system that fails Black women. “I am pushing the STEM community to invest in Black women by advocating for policies that support, promote, and fund their intellectual pursuits,” she writes.
• Glaciologist Yasmin Cole explores how studying sea ice awakened her to the need for political engagement. “Our roles as people in STEM and people who can vote are intertwined,” she writes.
• Interdisciplinary researcher Kaytee Canfield writes that scholar-activists “aim to create on-the-ground change for the communities with whom they work.”
• Epidemiologist Christine Kamamia reveals how underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in HIV/AIDS research has caused her to face a culture of exclusion. “It’s up to us to push through the obstacles systemically placed in front of us to make sure we are heard,” she writes.
• Sea ice and glacial hazard researcher Dina Abdel-Fattah looks at how politics needs science, and science needs politics. “My work is applied and human-focused, which also means it is inherently political,” she writes.

*Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math