EPA admits to altering science under Trump administration
-
Senior leaders at the Environmental Protection Agency improperly meddled in the work of career scientists when reviewing the approval of certain pesticides in 2018, according to a new report and the agency’s own admission.
The top officials changed and omitted items from documents related to the decision to grant licenses to three dicamba pesticides, the EPA inspector general found, and created a culture in which career employees felt “constrained” and “muted” from speaking up. In addition to violating EPA’s scientific integrity policies, the tampering left the agency vulnerable to lawsuits. The IG report followed widespread allegations of political interference in the work of career scientists under the Trump administration and comes amid a governmentwide Biden administration review into instances of such meddling.
— — — —
The EPA’s Inspector General’s report: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-05/documents/_epaoig20210524-21-e-0146.pdf
“We found that the EPA’s 2018 decision to extend registrations for three dicamba pesticide products varied from typical operating procedures. Namely, the EPA did not conduct the required internal peer reviews of scientific documents created to support the dicamba decision. While division-level management review is part of the typical operating procedure, interviewees said that senior leaders in the OCSPP’s immediate office were more involved in the dicamba decision than in other pesticide registration decisions. This led to senior-level changes to or omissions from scientific documents. For instance, these documents excluded some conclusions initially assessed by staff scientists to address stakeholder risks. We also found that staff felt constrained or muted in sharing their concerns on the dicamba registrations. The EPA’s actions on the dicamba registrations left the decision legally vulnerable, resulting in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacating the 2018 registrations for violating FIFRA by substantially understating some risks and failing to acknowledge others entirely.”
-
Senior leaders at the Environmental Protection Agency improperly meddled in the work of career scientists when reviewing the approval of certain pesticides in 2018, according to a new report and the agency’s own admission.
The top officials changed and omitted items from documents related to the decision to grant licenses to three dicamba pesticides, the EPA inspector general found, and created a culture in which career employees felt “constrained” and “muted” from speaking up. In addition to violating EPA’s scientific integrity policies, the tampering left the agency vulnerable to lawsuits. The IG report followed widespread allegations of political interference in the work of career scientists under the Trump administration and comes amid a governmentwide Biden administration review into instances of such meddling.
— — — —
The EPA’s Inspector General’s report: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-05/documents/_epaoig20210524-21-e-0146.pdf
“We found that the EPA’s 2018 decision to extend registrations for three dicamba pesticide products varied from typical operating procedures. Namely, the EPA did not conduct the required internal peer reviews of scientific documents created to support the dicamba decision. While division-level management review is part of the typical operating procedure, interviewees said that senior leaders in the OCSPP’s immediate office were more involved in the dicamba decision than in other pesticide registration decisions. This led to senior-level changes to or omissions from scientific documents. For instance, these documents excluded some conclusions initially assessed by staff scientists to address stakeholder risks. We also found that staff felt constrained or muted in sharing their concerns on the dicamba registrations. The EPA’s actions on the dicamba registrations left the decision legally vulnerable, resulting in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacating the 2018 registrations for violating FIFRA by substantially understating some risks and failing to acknowledge others entirely.”
I read the EPA report and importantly their recommendations. I was confused like did I get linked to a different case.
Ax- tell me why the recommendation does not tell me how severe the transgression was. I mean it’s a different planet from your thread title.
