On April 17th忧思科学家联188金宝博盟obtainedEPA records through three separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests demonstrating that a proposedTrojan horse “transparency” policy that would restrict the agency’s ability to use the best available science in decision-making is driven by politics, not science. The records also embarrassingly showed EPA officials were more concerned about the release of industry trade secrets than they were about sensitive private medical information.
三天后,EPA officials removed the recordsfrom an online portal where anyone could review them.
Today, UCS restored public access bypostingalmost all of the responsive documents (more than 100 out of the 124 responsive records) related to the so-called “secret science” policy.
The documents obtained by UCS provide insight into how political appointees and industry interests, not science, are driving EPA’s pursuit of administratively implementing failed anti-science legislation.
EPA removed the documents after extensive reporting on the contents, including by reporters atPOLITICO,The Hill,E&E News,Reuters, andMother Jones. In each of those stories, which I encourage you to read, journalists highlighted how EPA officials are attempting to administratively implement failed anti-science legislation advanced by House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, to benefit industries the agency is in charge of regulating and at the public’s expense.
The documents provided a window into the considerations of many agency officials, and showed that a policy that would be a fundamental shift in the way EPA uses science, was driven exclusively by political appointees, not scientists.
There were anumberofdocumentson other topics that were also included in the records that were responsive to our public records request, that we are still reviewing. However, as a result of EPA’s actions, public access was denied.
My colleague and I spent much of our Friday afternoon trying to figure out why the documents were taken down. We repeatedly reached out to the agency, and were informed that the records were removed because of concerns about “privacy information” and “attorney-client communication.” Before posting the documentsonline, we spent some time going through all of the records and removed any documents that could be considered as private in nature (i.e. family pictures, etc.) or represent such privileged communication.
The irony here is not lost on me, as EPA tries to hide records that are critical to understanding the policy development process while officials try to develop a policy about “transparency” in the agency’s use of science.
The agency on Thursday sent a proposed policyto the White Housefor review. This means that a policy to restrict independent science can be announced any day now. These documents are critical to reporting around the motivation for the policy and to evaluate EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s claims of improving transparency in policymaking at the agency.
So, in the spirt of thepresumption of opennessdoctrine under FOIA, we believe that it is our responsibility to restore public access tothese documents. It is up to us, the public, to watchdog EPA and hold agency officials accountable.
You can find the documentshere.