加强监管科学的透明度:环境保护署内部监管科学的建议

R. S. Herron, Jonathan Klonowski, Cassandra Rios
{"title":"加强监管科学的透明度:环境保护署内部监管科学的建议","authors":"R. S. Herron, Jonathan Klonowski, Cassandra Rios","doi":"10.38126/JSPG170113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Policy decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be informed by consulting the most relevant and updated information. Accordingly, the quality of information used is an integral part of federal decision-making as it can add credibility to policy. In 2018, EPA proposed the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule (EPA-STRS, updated March 2020) as an effort to assess the quality of studies used by EPA and increase transparency in policy-making decisions through conducting publicly accessible peer-reviews of all data and models. Herein we detail three arguments detailing differing perspectives on EPA-STRS and determine that, while the proposed rule purportedly seeks to strengthen the scientific underpinning of EPA policy, the current language risks the integrity of the agency’s policy-making process. EPA-STRS neither adequately details methodology with which independent validation would occur, nor delineates how valid exceptions to this rule would be identified in an unbiased manner. Furthermore, the implementation of this rule as currently written would allow for the politicization of EPA policymaking through abuse of the scientific study screening process. We propose that EPA amend EPA-STRS to reduce ambiguity, minimize biases, and address concerns related to independent research validation and peer review.","PeriodicalId":438080,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Science Policy & Governance","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science: The Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposal to Internally Regulating Science\",\"authors\":\"R. S. Herron, Jonathan Klonowski, Cassandra Rios\",\"doi\":\"10.38126/JSPG170113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\": Policy decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be informed by consulting the most relevant and updated information. Accordingly, the quality of information used is an integral part of federal decision-making as it can add credibility to policy. In 2018, EPA proposed the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule (EPA-STRS, updated March 2020) as an effort to assess the quality of studies used by EPA and increase transparency in policy-making decisions through conducting publicly accessible peer-reviews of all data and models. Herein we detail three arguments detailing differing perspectives on EPA-STRS and determine that, while the proposed rule purportedly seeks to strengthen the scientific underpinning of EPA policy, the current language risks the integrity of the agency’s policy-making process. EPA-STRS neither adequately details methodology with which independent validation would occur, nor delineates how valid exceptions to this rule would be identified in an unbiased manner. Furthermore, the implementation of this rule as currently written would allow for the politicization of EPA policymaking through abuse of the scientific study screening process. We propose that EPA amend EPA-STRS to reduce ambiguity, minimize biases, and address concerns related to independent research validation and peer review.\",\"PeriodicalId\":438080,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Science Policy & Governance\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Science Policy & Governance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG170113\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Science Policy & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG170113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

环境保护署(EPA)的政策决定应参考最相关和最新的信息。因此,所使用信息的质量是联邦决策的一个组成部分,因为它可以增加政策的可信度。2018年,EPA提出了“加强监管科学透明度”规则(EPA- strs, 2020年3月更新),以评估EPA使用的研究的质量,并通过对所有数据和模型进行公开的同行评审来提高决策的透明度。在此,我们详细介绍了三个关于EPA- strs的不同观点的论点,并确定,虽然拟议规则据称旨在加强EPA政策的科学基础,但目前的语言可能会危及机构决策过程的完整性。EPA-STRS既没有充分详细说明进行独立验证的方法,也没有描述如何以公正的方式识别该规则的有效例外。此外,执行目前所写的这一规则将通过滥用科学研究筛选过程使环境保护局的决策政治化。我们建议EPA修改EPA- strs,以减少歧义,最大限度地减少偏差,并解决与独立研究验证和同行评审相关的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science: The Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposal to Internally Regulating Science
: Policy decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be informed by consulting the most relevant and updated information. Accordingly, the quality of information used is an integral part of federal decision-making as it can add credibility to policy. In 2018, EPA proposed the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule (EPA-STRS, updated March 2020) as an effort to assess the quality of studies used by EPA and increase transparency in policy-making decisions through conducting publicly accessible peer-reviews of all data and models. Herein we detail three arguments detailing differing perspectives on EPA-STRS and determine that, while the proposed rule purportedly seeks to strengthen the scientific underpinning of EPA policy, the current language risks the integrity of the agency’s policy-making process. EPA-STRS neither adequately details methodology with which independent validation would occur, nor delineates how valid exceptions to this rule would be identified in an unbiased manner. Furthermore, the implementation of this rule as currently written would allow for the politicization of EPA policymaking through abuse of the scientific study screening process. We propose that EPA amend EPA-STRS to reduce ambiguity, minimize biases, and address concerns related to independent research validation and peer review.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信