The Politicization of Regulatory Science: Science Transparency at the Trump Administration’s EPA

IF 0.8 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Case Studies in the Environment Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1525/cse.2022.1800281
Rose Zappacosta, Casey L. Taylor
{"title":"The Politicization of Regulatory Science: Science Transparency at the Trump Administration’s EPA","authors":"Rose Zappacosta, Casey L. Taylor","doi":"10.1525/cse.2022.1800281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this case study, we explore the Trump Administration’s 2018 “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule and investigate it as an example of the politics associated with how science is used in the regulatory process in the United States. Publicly, the administration claimed the rule would improve data and scientific quality, as well as lead to greater transparency in regulatory decisions made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The rule’s many critics, including many scientific organizations and environmental groups, argued instead however that the rule was politically motivated, and only the latest attempt of many by regulated industries to interfere in the EPA’s use of science in its regulatory analysis and decision-making. They argued the true goal of the rule was instead to impede the agency’s mission by restricting its use of key public health studies and slowing its operations. The rule, which took effect in January 2021, was quickly vacated when the Biden Administration took office. Although this rule is no longer in place, it provides an illustrative example of the complicated relationship between politics and science, as well as of a political strategy often used by industry actors and political conservatives to avoid environmental regulations.","PeriodicalId":42507,"journal":{"name":"Case Studies in the Environment","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Case Studies in the Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/cse.2022.1800281","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this case study, we explore the Trump Administration’s 2018 “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule and investigate it as an example of the politics associated with how science is used in the regulatory process in the United States. Publicly, the administration claimed the rule would improve data and scientific quality, as well as lead to greater transparency in regulatory decisions made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The rule’s many critics, including many scientific organizations and environmental groups, argued instead however that the rule was politically motivated, and only the latest attempt of many by regulated industries to interfere in the EPA’s use of science in its regulatory analysis and decision-making. They argued the true goal of the rule was instead to impede the agency’s mission by restricting its use of key public health studies and slowing its operations. The rule, which took effect in January 2021, was quickly vacated when the Biden Administration took office. Although this rule is no longer in place, it provides an illustrative example of the complicated relationship between politics and science, as well as of a political strategy often used by industry actors and political conservatives to avoid environmental regulations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
监管科学的政治化:特朗普政府环保署的科学透明度
在本案例研究中,我们探讨了特朗普政府2018年的“加强监管科学透明度”规则,并将其作为与美国监管过程中如何使用科学相关的政治例子进行研究。在公开场合,政府声称该规定将改善数据和科学质量,并使环境保护署(EPA)的监管决策更加透明。然而,该规定的许多批评者,包括许多科学组织和环境组织,却认为该规定是出于政治动机,而且只是许多受监管行业干涉EPA在其监管分析和决策中使用科学的最新尝试。他们认为,该规定的真正目的是通过限制该机构使用关键的公共卫生研究和减缓其运作来阻碍该机构的使命。该规定于2021年1月生效,在拜登政府上台后很快被废除。虽然这条规则已经不存在了,但它为政治和科学之间的复杂关系提供了一个说明性的例子,也为行业参与者和政治保守派经常使用的政治策略提供了一个例子,以避免环境法规。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Legacies Matter: Exploring Social Acceptance of Pumped Storage Hydro in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula Governing Transition: Case Studies in Transformative Adaptation Understanding Facilitators and Barriers to Success: Framework for Developing Community Forestry Case Studies The Bronx River and Environmental Justice Through the Lens of a Watershed Barriers and Facilitators for Successful Community Forestry: Lessons Learned and Practical Applications From Case Studies in India and Guatemala
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1