Cookie Control

This site uses cookies to store information on your computer.

Some cookies on this site are essential, and the site won't work as expected without them. These cookies are set when you submit a form, login or interact with the site by doing something that goes beyond clicking on simple links.

We also use some non-essential cookies to anonymously track visitors or enhance your experience of the site. If you're not happy with this, we won't set these cookies but some nice features of the site may be unavailable.

By using our site you accept the terms of our Privacy Policy.

(One cookie will be set to store your preference)
(Ticking this sets a cookie to hide this popup if you then hit close. This will not store any personal information)

House Passes Bill That Helps Silence Science on EPA Advisory Board

November 19, 2014

On a 229-191 party-line vote, the GOP-controlled House passed a bill (HR 1422) reining in EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) — authorizing conflicts of interest for its members and gagging them in communications about subjects they are expert on.

Science integrity and environmental groups had opposed the bill, which the House passed on November 18, 2014. Although it is unlikely to get traction in the Democrat-controlled Senate this year, it might face better chances of enactment when the Senate goes Republican next year. The White House has threatened to veto it.

The bill would create more room on the SAB, which is really a network of subject-related committees and subcommittees, for experts who have financial ties to industries affected by EPA regulations. The bill allows SAB members to have conflicts of interest, as long as those conflicts are disclosed.

The bill forbids SAB members from reporting directly to the EPA. Further, it prohibits SAB members from participating in matters that, even indirectly, involve discussion of their own work. This would keep experts on the board from having input into matters they know about. Alternatively, the bill imposes sweeping new requirements for "public participation," and requires the SAB to address all public comments. This would enable industry lobbyists who are not board members or subject experts to dominate scientific discussions.

SEJ Publication Types: 
Visibility: