• Heritage Action
  • More

A Critique of Sound Science at the EPA

Recorded on May 30, 2003

The Heritage Foundation's Van Andel Center

In November 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency's Inspector General released the report, Science to Support Rulemaking, faulting the agency for failing to peer review many of the studies underlying its pre-2001 rulemakings. In fact, the report noted that a third of the studies evaluated were not peer reviewed, and the status of the final third could not be determined. Additionally, in a pilot study involving "significant" rules finalized after 1989 in a selected sample of 15 case studies, the Inspector General found that EPA could do more to increase the transparency with which science is applied to rules.

What measures is the EPA taking to ensure that its decisions are based on sound science? Are proper peer review of its environmental models and rulemakings being conducted? Is the EPA integrating sound science into its programs, policies, and decisions? Is the agency consistently performing critical scientific studies and presenting the information in a manner more consistent with the norms of scientific communication, as suggested by the Inspector General?

Please join us on May 30th to hear the EPA's Assistant Administrator for Research & Development and Science Advisor, Paul Gilman, answer these and other questions as well as discuss critical issues regarding the quality of data used to support the EPA's rulemaking process.