How Scott Pruitt's “transparency” rule is just a sneaky ploy to censor science

Jennifer McPartland

In 1964, the U.S. Surgeon General shocked Americans with an advisory linking tobacco to lung cancer and chronic bronchitis. The anti-smoking campaign that ensued was one of the biggest public health successes of all time.

Too bad that the Trump administration has decided to censor the kinds of scientific studies that prompted the tobacco warning half a century ago – and which more recently helped strengthen air pollution standards and countless other public health advances.

What Scott Pruitt, our reckless U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief, calls a rule against “secret science” is code talk for blocking his agency’s use of peer-reviewed research if data in such studies cannot be made public, even for practical or legitimate reasons.

Research that underpinned American public health policies for decades could soon be – poof – gone. You can see where this is going.

Chemical safety studies in jeopardy

The push to censor science comes as the Trump administration is rolling back clean air and water safeguards, and undermining a significant 2016 chemical safety law.

As the proposed EPA science rule took shape, political appointees such as Nancy Beck, formerly with the chemical industry’s lobbying arm and now the top dog in EPA’s toxics office, played a key role shaping its language. As might be expected, the rule could limit what studies are used in activities she oversees, further eroding chemical safety.

Same thing with studies informing clean air and water standards, or research showing how pollution causes cancer.

Landmark air pollution study out the door?

A major research project focused on air pollution and mortality – part of the American Cancer Society’s sweeping Cancer Prevention Study – is among those that could be censored by Pruitt’s EPA.

The study covered 500,000 people tracked nationwide between 1982 and 2004. Participants shared intimate details about their personal and medical lives; including economic and marital status, eating habits, alcohol consumption, medication, religion and other private matters.

The research went through many rounds of review and independent re-analysis to confirm its results. It has helped shape air pollution laws in the United States and elsewhere.

And yet, under Pruitt’s new proposed rule, government scientists and policymakers may be unable to use this highly respected study going forward.

Impossible demands

The proposed rule says the EPA cannot rely on studies unless all data on which they rely is made public, with possible exemptions for private data. But it doesn’t make clear what data counts as private, or how private medical information will remain protected – and it’s entirely up to Pruitt to make such exemptions.  

Getting written consent from study participants to release data would also be a futile chase. Many have since passed away and their family members are very hard to track down.

All this means critical scientific research could be excluded from policy decisions going forward. Pruitt’s EPA knows these realities full well.

It doesn’t have to be this way

Science has guided government policy for a long time. Billions in federal funds have been steered over the years to advance research and protect public health. To suddenly change the rules and let politics limit what science we can consider will only take us back to a darker and more ignorant time.

Good leaders look out for our well-being and health. They champion strong research. What they don’t do is engage in double-speak or censor science.


As an engineer, I have to disagree with your basic premise. Science without the availability of original data, is not science. Good science is always based on “here is my hypothesis and here is my data and how I produced or collected it - prove me wrong”

Lawrence Gillum
May 19, 2018 at 8:34 am

Get Pruitt out of office.

Roxanne Lankford
May 19, 2018 at 9:53 am

EPA should protect our environment so that we all have unpolluted air, water, streams and soil; and healthy children and fish.

Harry Gedney, …
May 19, 2018 at 3:06 pm

EPA regulations were made to keep people safe from corporate polluters trying to destroy the water we drink and the air we breathe and our land. Do you forget that at one time, rivers were totally polluted and the air almost unbreathable in certain cities? 

Victoria Olson
May 21, 2018 at 10:37 pm

The decimation of the EPA is just the beginning of Corporations First and To Hell with the population, environment, and health of the nation. It will get worse [every] day, month and year and we may never recover. Science is all we have and throwing it out with no concern will only bring on greater disasters.

Aeon Dream
May 22, 2018 at 4:51 pm

The new America ruled by Trump will turn America into a toxic wasteland.Oligarchs have not changed, they are out for themselves. They do not see government as an institution to defend and promote the rights and needs of citizens. They see it as an impediment to unrestricted exploitation and profit.

To oligarchs, unspoiled land and water are commodities they will use to increase wealth and then discard. This is how they are wired, don’t be fooled by the grins and oily promises of these men. The oligarchs do not propose structural change, they do not want businesses and the marketplace regulated. They seek, rather, a mechanism to exploit America and will continue to transform us into a deindustrialized wasteland so they can continue to feed upon us like swarms of longnose lancetfish, which devour others of their own species.

Victoria Olson
May 23, 2018 at 12:06 pm

Transparency is a great goal. But that is not what is motivating Pruitt or his colleagues.

I am in favor of simplifying regulations and taking a hard look at unintended consequences. The Trump administration seems to think that the goal is to remove regulations altogether. The people who really benefit will have enough money to insulate themselves from the consequences that will affect most of us.

Kim Hirschman
June 1, 2018 at 4:09 pm

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.