1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Public Health
  4. Volume 41, 2020
  5. Article

Annual Review of Public Health

Volume 41, 2020

Deregulation and the Assault on Science and the Environment

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.

Keyword(s): deregulation, environment, public health
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094056
2020-04-01
2024-04-23
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/
  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. 151:669–74
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Carson R. 1962. Silent Spring New York: Houghton Mifflin
  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. 329:1753–59
     [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
  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 363:1398–400
     [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 162:1243–48
     [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.
  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
  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
  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
  17. 17. 
    Natl. Res. Counc 2009. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  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
  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
  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
  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
  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..
  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
  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
  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
  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
  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:
  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
  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
  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
  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
  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
  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
Deregulation and the Assault on Science and the Environment
Annual Review of Public Health 41, 347 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094056
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094056
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094056
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

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