EPA and Interior overhaul scientific advisory boards to favor industry

In a move meant to stem government regulation, the EPA is cutting academic scientists from its scientific review board and replacing them with industry representatives, while the Interior Department prepares for a review of the scientists on its own advisory council.

“EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt decided to replace half of the members on one of its key scientific review boards, while Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is ‘reviewing the charter and charge’ of more than 200 advisory boards, committees and other entities both within and outside his department. EPA and Interior officials began informing current members of the move Friday, and notifications continued over the weekend,” says The Washington Post.

Both boards are tasked with reviewing research done by the agencies on everything from water quality to the impact of climate change.

“The administrator believes we should have people on [the EPA] board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community,” said EPA spokesman, J. P. Freire, speaking of the agency’s chief Scott Pruitt.

Freire said the agency wanted “to take as inclusive an approach to regulation as possible,” reports The New York Times. “’We want to expand the pool of applicants” for the scientific board,’ he said, ‘to include universities that aren’t typically represented and issues that aren’t typically represented.’”

The scientists on the EPA board who were dismissed were all academics who were reaching the last year of their three-year team. In the past, however, appointments were typically renewed. Ryan Jackson, Pruitt’s chief of staff, said in an email that all the dismissed board members are allowed to re-apply for their position, according to the Post.

Kimberly White, senior director of chemical products and technology at the American Chemistry Council — one of the organizations that has pushed for fewer environmental regulations and more industry representation within the EPA — explained the industry perspective at a House congressional hearing in February: “We have also seen situations where peer reviewers have suggested discounting a study solely based on the funding source, without any considerations being given to the quality of the study. Also, E.P.A. staff often comment throughout peer review meetings, essentially participating as peers, while industry experts are typically excluded from the dialogue.”

Zinke’s review process is expected to stall many of Interior’s projects, “effectively freez[ing] the work of the Bureau of Land Management’s 38 resource advisory councils, along with other panels focused on a sweep of issues, from one assessing the threat of invasive species to the science technical advisory panel for Alaska’s North Slope,” says the Post.

Exit mobile version