{"title":"监管科学的政治化:特朗普政府环保署的科学透明度","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":"{\"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}","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}
The Politicization of Regulatory Science: Science Transparency at the Trump Administration’s EPA
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.