The EPA has excluded senior scientists when it rewrote the rules for the use of scientific studies

When the former EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, had launched an effort to limit the type of scientific studies that could be used to protect public health, he left out some key experts : the office of the scientific adviser of the Environmental Protection Agency, according to an email exchange obtained by The Washington Post.

Tom Sinks, director of the office, said in an email of April 24: "Although OSA and I were not involved in the development of this document and I obtained it at that time (I have not read it yet), point of contact. "

Sinks added, with precision, that "the proposal probably touches on three aspects of OSA's work: public access to EPA-funded research, the protection of research on topics. humans and scientific integrity "- all of which fall under its responsibility.

The email was posted in response to a request from the Freedom of Information Act of the Union of Concern Scientists.

The proposed rule, "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science", has been one of the Conservatives' top priorities for years. This would allow the EPA to consider only those studies for which the underlying data is publicly available and can be replicated by other researchers. Such restrictions could change the way the body protects Americans from toxic chemicals, air pollution, radiation and other health risks, reinforcing the organization's deregulation agenda.

"It is amazing that the EPA's Scientific Advisor's office was completely left out when a major science policy proposal was developed," said Michael Halpern, Deputy Director of the Center for Science and Technology. democracy of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Developing meaningful proposals behind closed doors without bothering to warn career scientists suggests that this is much more politics than science."

In a statement, the agency replied that "the EPA has received contributions from a number of stakeholders and has used the intra and inter-agency process to ensure the presentation of the project." a solid proposal ".

The Scientific Advisor's office is part of the organization's main research arm, the Office of Research and Development (ORD). But a reorganization of the agency could merge it with another office further down the ORD's organizational chart. Critics say it could blunt his influence.

In an interview Monday, Andrew Wheeler, acting administrator of the EPA, said the agency was not trying to diminish the role of the ORD.

"We are really trying to improve the organization's office and focus more on the client so that all other program offices look to our research office for research leads and to meet their scientific needs." said Wheeler.

Although technical, the proposal to increase the transparency of regulatory science is very controversial. During a lengthy public comment period, he garnered 590,000 comments, said EPA spokesman John Konkus on Tuesday.

Sixty-nine leading scientific, medical and academic organizations – including the American Association for the Advancement of Science – have asked the EPA to withdraw the draft rule. They stated that this would exclude studies deemed to be based on epidemiological data including confidential or confidential information from patients participating in private sector research.

"Contrary to the stated purpose of the rule, the rule would result in the exclusion of valuable and important scientific discoveries," said Rush D. Holt, former congressman and former physics professor, who is now president General Manager of the American Association for the Progress of the Work. Science, said in a testimony prepared for a congressional hearing on Wednesday. He said that the rule was "not about transparency or science" and that the title was an "insidious dodge".

Peter Wood, chairman of the National Association of Scholars' conservative advocacy group, wrote to Pruitt urging the EPA to "put in place a process to repeal existing regulations based on unprecedented science." ".

EPA's proposed regulation closely resembles the HONEST Act, which was the subject of a hearing Wednesday at the Senate Subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works on Superfund, Waste Management and regulatory oversight. Edward J. Calabrese, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at the School of Public Health in Amherst, praised the EPA's "bold and constructive proposal" in a testimony.

One area that could be affected is air pollution regulations that limit levels of fine particles that can enter the blood and cause lung and heart problems. The link between these particles and health risks stems from several studies, but one of the largest, Harvard University, investigated pollution in six cities, promising subjects that their many personal information would not be shared.

"A study that has been repeated several times could be ruled out, while a study using a publicly accessible lower database would be considered," said John Bachmann, who has been working at the EPA for 30 years and participated in the establishment of a regulation on pollution. .

According to experts, the guidelines for radiation exposure could also be weakened by the limitations of the proposal. Over the last three decades, scientists have used a model called a linear non-threshold model to evaluate the biological effects of radiation. This is a way to measure a full range of radiation doses compared to health outcomes, primarily cancer.

The model is used in part because of the difficulty of measuring exposure and long-term effects on health, with the exception of the survivors of the 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings.

Until now, government regulators have stated that even low levels of radiation can be dangerous and cause cancer.

Konkus said in an email that the proposal "does not even mention the word" delisting. "Yet the EPA's proposal states:" The EPA must assess the appropriateness of using assumptions default, including linear dose response assumptions, without threshold, on a case-by-case basis. "

This is a pleasure for Calabrese, who is an advocate of hormesis, that exposure to low doses of toxins – or radiation – can be beneficial. He stated in his prepared testimony that the abandonment of the linear approach, with no threshold, was "long overdue".

Asked about the implications of resetting an acceptable radiation exposure, Konkus said in an email that the EPA's policy would be to continue using the non-threshold linear model for "radiation safety objectives at the of the population "and that the proposed regulation" would not … trigger any change in this policy. "

David J. Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at the Columbia University Medical Center, said, "Dr. Calebrese says exposure to low levels of radiation is beneficial to human health and reduces the risk of cancer, is a much more unique vision in our field, with little or no supporting data. "

Brenner said in an email that "in recent years, a number of large-scale epidemiological studies have strongly suggested that low levels of radiation engender a very low cancer risk. These studies suggest that current radiation limits for the public are quite reasonable, providing a reasonable balance between public safety and the beneficial uses of radiation. "

"We still do not know how low doses of radiation are harmful," said Allison Macfarlane, former chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a proponent of limiting low-level exposures. "It is because it is difficult to distinguish the harmful effects (exposure to cigarette smoke, exposure to low doses of radiation, exposure to chemicals, etc.) that caused the cancer and because it It takes a lot of time for cancer to develop. "

Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.