Major Medical Journal Editors Warn Of Potential Decreasing Role Of Science In EPA Decisions

Editors from six major medical and scientific journals are unified in expressing concerns about the declining role of sound science by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), warning that a proposed rule appears to be designed to suppress the use of scientific evidence in regulatory decisions.

The editors published a joint statement last week in each of their journals, including The Lancet, Science, Nature, PLoS, Cell Press and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) of the United States of America.

At issue is the EPA’s proposed rule, known as “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science”, first introduced in May 2018. Five of the journals expressed concern at the time, and that number has now increased to six after the agency held a hearing on the proposed rule and the role of science in EPA decision-making on November 13, which the editors say suggested that finalization of the rule is now imminent.

The proposed rule indicates the EPA would ban the use of any scientific studies where the research data was not publicly available for independent validation when creating new regulations. However, critics say its definition of that is vague and would prevent the use of a significant amount of key, scientifically sound data.

While it sounds like a reasonable policy on its surface, the editors note that it could be used to rule out any science involving data privacy. Any study which keeps the identities of patients confidential, for example, could be blocked.

“Datasets featuring personal identifiers—including studies evaluating genomes of thousands of people to characterise medically relevant genetic variants—are but one example,” they wrote. “Such data may be critical to developing new drugs or diagnostic tools but cannot be shared openly; even anonymised personal data can be subject to re-identification, and it has been a long-standing practice for agencies and journals to acknowledge the value of data privacy adjustments.”

Some have said the rule appears designed to prevent the use of scientific evidence that does not fit with the politics of the current administration.

“We urge the EPA to continue to adopt an approach that ensures the data used in decision making are the best available, which will at times require consideration of peer-reviewed scientific data, not all of which may be open to all members of the public,” the editors wrote. “The most relevant science, vetted through peer review, should inform public policy. Anything less will harm decision making that claims to protect our health.”

The editors urged others who are concerned about the proposed rule to submit public comment to the EPA or contact their representatives in Congress.