1932

Abstract

The quality of the environment is a major determinant of the health and well-being of a population. The role of scientific evidence is central in the network of laws addressing environmental pollution in the United States and has been critical in addressing the myriad sources of environmental pollution and the burden of disease attributable to environmental factors. We address the shift away from reasoned action and science to a reliance on belief and document the efforts to separate regulation from science and to remove science-based regulations and policies intended to protect public health. We outline the general steps for moving from research to policy, show how each has been undermined, offer specific examples, and point to resources that document the enormity of the current efforts to set aside scientific evidence.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094056
2020-04-01
2024-11-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/publhealth/41/1/annurev-publhealth-040119-094056.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094056&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Anderson M. 2017.. For Earth Day, here's how Americans view environmental issues. Pew Res. Cent., Fact Tank:, April 20. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/20/for-earth-day-heres-how-americans-view-environmental-issues/
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Pope CA III, Thun MJ, Namboodiri MM, Dockery DW, Evans JS, et al. 1995.. Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of U.S. adults. . Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 151::66974
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Carson R. 1962.. Silent Spring. New York:: Houghton Mifflin
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Dockery DW, Pope CA III, Xu X, Spengler JD, Ware JH, et al. 1993.. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities. . N. Engl. J. Med. 329::175359
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Earth Day Netw. 2019.. The history of Earth Day. . Earth Day Network. https://www.earthday.org/about/the-history-of-earth-day/
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Fischer EA. 2013.. Public access to data from federally funded research: provisions in OMB Circular A-110. Rep., Congr. Res. Serv., Washington, DC:. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R42983.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Friedman L. 2018.. The E.P.A. says it wants research transparency. Scientists see an attack on science. . New York Times, March 26. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/climate/epa-scientific-transparency-honest-act.html
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Friedman L. 2019.. E.P.A. to limit science used to write public health rules. . New York Times, Nov. 11. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/climate/epa-science-trump.html
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Goldman GT, Dominici F. 2019.. Don't abandon evidence and process on air pollution policy. . Science 363::1398400
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Halpern M. 2017.. The EPA Science Advisory Board is being compromised. Here's why it matters. . Union of Concerned Scientists Blog, Oct. 30. https://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halpern/the-epa-science-advisory-board-is-being-compromised-heres-why-that-matters
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Hardin G. 1968.. The tragedy of the commons. . Science 162::124348
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Hiar C, Wittenberg A. 2019.. EPA plan to end funding for children's health research leaves scientists scrambling. . Science, May 20. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/epa-plan-end-funding-children-s-health-research-leaves-scientists-scrambling
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change). 2018.. Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. Geneva:: IPCC-World Meteorol. Organ
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Jackson LP. 2010.. Scientific integrity in federal government. Email, Off. Adm. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC:. https://www.peer.org/wp-content/uploads/attachments/1_24_11_Lisa_Jackson_science_integrity_message.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Krewski D, Burnett RT, Goldberg MS, Hoover K, Siemiatycki J, et al. 2000.. Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of particulate air pollution and mortality. Investigators' reports parts I and II. Spec. Rep., Health Effects Inst., Cambridge, MA:. https://www.healtheffects.org/system/files/HEI-Reanalysis-2000.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Mayer J. 2016.. Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. New York:: Penguin Random House
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Natl. Res. Counc. 2009.. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC:: Natl. Acad. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Nature. 2019.. Stop denying the risks of air pollution. . Nature 568::433
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Nichols T. 2017.. The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters. New York:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Otto SL. 2016.. The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It. Minneapolis, MN:: Milkweed
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Popovich N, Albeck-Ripka L, Pierre-Louis K. 2019.. 95 environmental rules being rolled back under Trump. . New York Times, updated Dec. 21. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Progr. OSA (Off. Sci. Advis.). 2018.. Strengthening transparency in regulatory science. Proposed Rule, Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC:. https://www.epa.gov/osa/strengthening-transparency-regulatory-science
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Rotman M. 2010.. Cuyahoga River Fire. . Cleveland Historical. https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Sci. Policy Counc., US EPA (Environ. Prot. Agency). 2006.. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Peer Review Handbook. Washington, DC:: US EPA
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Sci. Policy Counc., US EPA (Environ. Prot. Agency). 2015.. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Peer Review Handbook. Washington, DC:: US EPA. , 4th ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Sneed A. 2017.. House science committee may soon try to weaken the EPA. . Scientific American, Feb. 8. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/house-science-committee-may-soon-try-to-weaken-the-epa/
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    US EPA (Environ. Prot. Agency). 1996.. Responses to significant comments on the 1996 proposed rule on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Docket A-95-54, US EPA, Washington, DC:. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/rtc_pm.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    US EPA (Environ. Prot. Agency). 2005.. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001B, EPA, Washington, DC:. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/cancer_guidelines_final_3-25-05.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    US EPA (Environ. Prot. Agency). 2017.. Executive Order 13771—Reducing regulation and controlling regulatory costs. . US Environmental Protection Agency Laws & Regulations. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/executive-order-13771-reducing-regulation-and-controlling-regulatory-costs
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    US EPA (Environ. Prot. Agency). 2017.. FY 2018 EPA budget in brief. EPA-190-K-17-001, US EPA, Washington, DC:. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/fy-2018-budget-in-brief.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    US EPA (Environ. Prot. Agency). 2018.. FY 2019 EPA budget in brief. EPA-190-R-18-002, US EPA, Washington, DC:. https:/ /www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/fy-2019-epa-bib.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    US EPA (Environ. Prot. Agency). 2018.. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for particulate matter (external review draft). EPA/600/R-18/179, US EPA, Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    US EPA (Environ. Prot. Agency). 2018.. Our mission and what we do. . US Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    US EPA (Environ. Prot. Agency). 2019.. FY 2020 EPA budget in brief. EPA-190-R-19-001, US EPA, Washington, DC:. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-03/documents/fy-2020-epa-bib.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    US EPA (Environ. Prot. Agency). 2019.. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) glossary. Vocab. Cat., Off. Res. Dev./Natl. Cent. Environ. Assess./Integr. Risk Inf. Syst., Washington, DC:, updated Aug. 31, 2011
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    US EPA (Environ. Prot. Agency). 2019.. A message from the IRIS program. Integr. Risk Inf. Syst. (IRIS) Update, April, US EPA, Washington, DC:. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-04/documents/iris_program_outlook_apr2019.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    US EPA (Environ. Prot. Agency). 2019.. Risk assessment guidelines. . US Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessment-guidelines
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    US GPO (Gov. Account. Off.). 2019.. EPA advisory committees: improvements needed for the member appointment process. Rep. GAO-19-280, Congr. Req., Washington, DC:. https://www.eenews.net/assets/2019/07/15/document_gw_05.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Wheeler AR. 2019.. Increasing consistency and transparency in considering costs and benefits in the rulemaking process. Memo., Off. Adm. US Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC:. https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/increasing-consistency-and-transparency-considering-costs-and-benefits
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    White House. 2018.. Remarks by President Trump to the World Economic Forum. . History Musings, Jan. 26. https://historymusings.wordpress.com/category/us-political-news-topics/economy/
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094056
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094056
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error