from the honesty-is-the-absence-of-the-intent-to-deceive dept.
With the days counting down to the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden, the Trump administration has been undertaking a series of actions that will make it more difficult for its replacements to reverse any of its policies or pursue new ones. This is especially true in the area of environmental regulations, where both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior have recently issued decisions.
[...] The EPA's new rule [PDF link], which will be formally published [on January 6, 2021], is an attempt to set additional standards for the evidence it considers when establishing new regulations for pollutants. In principle, the rule sounds great: it wants the data behind the scientific papers it uses to be made publicly available before it can be used to support regulatory decisions. In reality, the rule is problematic, because many of these studies rely on patient records that need to be kept confidential. In other cases, the organizations with the best information on some environmental hazards are the companies that produce or work with them, and they may not be interested in sharing proprietary data.
The practical result of this sort of change is that the EPA would be precluded from relying on scientific papers that contained the clearest indications of public harm. This would almost certainly lead to weaker rules or a decision not to regulate at all.
The EPA defends the rule in a Wall Street Journal editorial:
[T]he work of the Environmental Protection Agency—to protect human health and the environment—shouldn’t be exempt from public scrutiny. This is why we are promulgating a rule to make the agency’s scientific processes more transparent.
Too often Congress shirks its responsibility and defers important decisions to regulatory agencies. These regulators then invoke science to justify their actions, often without letting the public study the underlying data. Part of transparency is making sure the public knows what the agency bases its decisions on. When agencies defer to experts in private without review from citizens, distinctions get flattened and the testing and deliberation of science is precluded.
Our rule will prioritize transparency and increase opportunities for the public to access the “dose-response” data that underlie significant regulations and influential scientific information.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday January 06 2021, @12:33PM (20 children)
For patient data: This had better already be anonymized before use in a study, because the researchers are certainly not privileged to see patient data. For proprietary data: tough, if you won't share it publicly, then you can't complain when it gets ignored.
Seriously, I've run across too many papers that say "look, we proved X" - and when you want to see just how they proved X it comes down to "trust us, we really did, no you cannot see how we did it". That's not science, and should disqualify the paper from any sort of publication. When I was active in research, I put all of my data and code online in a public archive. How the hell else is anyone supposed to replicate (or criticize) your results? If you aren't willing to make it possible to replicate your work, you aren't doing science.
Good on the EPA.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @12:54PM
Yea reminds me of the people who say "in principle replication sounds eminently reasonable, but in practice it doesn't do anything because all the studies are too crappy to replicate".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by unauthorized on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:12PM (8 children)
I don't see the problem there. As long as they publish the methodology, any third party which wishes to verify the results and go through the proper process for acquiring the same data may do so. I get that sometimes acquiring the data may be difficult and sometimes prohibitively so and whilst that certainly is a problem on itself, it's not really a valid reason to discard the conclusions. The validity of a conclusion is not influenced in any way by it's accessibility to the public.
Science is a method to acquire knowledge, not a method of information distribution. Anything is science if you follow proper scientific rigor, even if you're the only one who ever sees the knowledge and regardless of whether the conclusions are correct.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:55PM (2 children)
Quoth the parent:
"Science is a method to acquire knowledge, not a method of information distribution. Anything is science if you follow proper scientific rigor, even if you're the only one who ever sees the knowledge and regardless of whether the conclusions are correct."
But we are explicitly talking about information distribution. Either a paper is published or some rule is made and enforced on others based on the "science." The "science" we are talking about is a public act.
BTW, a key element of the definition of "science" is that it is replicable. The world operates the same for you, me, or anyone. There are no privileged sources of truth. So to satisfy this, yes, HOW you arrived at your results must be open to others. Else, it's not science, but simply decrees.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:02PM
I should mention that HOW you arrived at your results includes your data.
Why would you go halfway with showing your work? So as to discourage analysis of your experiment by putting more obstacles up? Analyzing the data is the first pass check for common or gross errors. It may also turn out that the experiment really can't be replicated (at least not directly) because the "experiment" was a one time natural event. In that case, data is all we have to analyze.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @12:43AM
Result: nevermore!
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:56PM (3 children)
The thing is: this may not be possible. And if it is not possible, or is prohibitively difficult, then you cannot replicate the research. There is already too little incentive for replication - we at least need to make it easy.
There is far more bad science out there than most people realize. Researchers who know in advance what they want the results to show, and twist their data into pretzels until they get the desired results. Or simply researchers with a hypothesis that doesn't pan out. Negative results are almost unpublishable. So you spend months or years on a project, and...oops, your hypothesis was wrong. What do you do? You start p-hacking, or you disqualify some data that you dislike, and - voila! - you have a publishable result. Wrong, but publishable - and you rely on no one trying to hard to replicate it.
Replication must be easy. If you publish a paper, everything that backs it up must be public: methodology, code, data, everything.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:06PM (1 child)
You have hit on a KEY issue: papers showing a negative result are considered failed experiments and not worthy of publishing. (Unless you set out to "disprove" something, usually something that is politically popular to attack. In that case, not advancing science is perfectly FINE.)
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Wednesday January 06 2021, @06:54PM
A "Journal of Dead Ends" would actually be very interesting.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday January 06 2021, @04:43PM
Science, that is, doing science, is very competitive. Too competitive, perhaps. And despite all the trolling to slander scientific endeavor as nerdy, brainsickly, or just conspiracies whose real purpose is to enrich scientists, plus the fake science by frauds who are trying to steal a little cred and glory, science remains very well respected, more respected than anything else we do.
I wonder if the disdain for negative results is just one aspect of a larger problem. Which is, that publication requirements impose a scarcity that has become ridiculously artificial. Academic publishing has not done a good job of adapting. They aren't leading the charge to use our (relatively) new technology that makes dissemination much, much easier, with orders of magnitude more space for everything. To the contrary, they've been dragging their feet, and trying to hold everyone else back. I suspect most journals are still imposing tight restrictions, such as the 10 page limit, resting on several different rationales for keeping that, now that the old space limits of printing aren't a real problem any more. No doubt they argue that such a tight limit forces researchers to stay focused, and polish their writing, remove every speck of excessive verbiage. It's one thing to chop out things that are so obvious that leaving them in would be downright insulting to the readers. To be tempted to leave out details that may be crucial and not easy to figure out without a few more hints, is another. We don't want more of the infamous Fermat's Last Theorem in which he states that he has a proof, but there's not enough room in the margins to write it down! Generations of mathematicians tormented themselves trying to figure out what Fermat could have discovered.
There is now plenty of publication resources to accommodate negative results. However competitive science may be, there should not be contention over the now wholly artificial scarcity that arises from the remnants of print publishing.
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Wednesday January 06 2021, @06:55PM
any third party which wishes to verify the results and go through the proper process for acquiring the same data may do so
Excellent. Then when that verifying study is done the dataset and methodology can be made public and the EPA can form policy on the basis of it. Or not do so if the results aren't replicated. Until then you've only got assertions. (and possibly after then if the verification is flawed, but perfect isn't an available choice - at least if the cards are on the table mistakes are more likely to be caught or 'political' results challenged)
This rule both prevents the use of some proprietary resources while also acting as a limit to damage via political hacks using ideological 'science' where proof is hidden behind the curtain. Interested parties have a motive for exaggerating things that support their predetermined goals, and diminishing or concealing negative information. Assume your most despised political opponents are in control and consider what restrictions you want on them. (or... just that politicians are always in control and it's not wise to allow them to base policy on 'science' that's concealed to stifle challenge - I'd rather see dumb things ridiculed)
(Score: 5, Touché) by SpockLogic on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:15PM (8 children)
The problem is "Profits before People", the keystone of the Republican death cult.
With any luck this will be the death rattle of the corrupt Trump administration.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:37PM
Are not the billionaires that profit hugely while everybody else suffers, all Dems?
And you cannot have a Death cult without a D in it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:48PM (6 children)
Don't death cults typically claim to offer eternal life in exchange for extreme deference to authority in the face of apocalyptic doom?
Yeah, those damn Republicans again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:57PM (5 children)
Materialist cults exist and are quite popular. Follow me and my orders, and you will become wealthy. No need for an afterlife because the cultists have no souls.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:06PM (4 children)
Still seems to focus a lot on following orders given from a central authority for the promise of a better tomorrow. Not exactly a ringing criticism of conservative ideology.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:29PM (1 child)
It'd not conservatives in the streets in matching black rioter uniforms or in the media all reciting from the same exact script about their "privilege" and the "learning from others" and "putting in the work."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @06:15PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L0k2-kO_yc&feature=emb_title [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @07:24PM
That is exactly what Republicans are, except when they don't like the rules then suddenly they pretend they are rugged individualists and any government action is tyranny. It is laughably hypocrtical.
You did say conservative ideology, which is fair, but then you'd better not vote for any Republican.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @07:29PM
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/06/trump-threat-primaries-gop-lawmakers-455366 [politico.com]
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @01:28PM
their money flow.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:36PM (2 children)
90% of the EPA's budget is in superfund site cleanup. Last I checked their total discretionary budget for grants was only 1M$. "EPA" is a misnomer. What they actually are is a public fund for externalizing pollution costs of large corporations.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @02:44PM
Good argument. AC to AC, this site could benefit from more posts like this and less reflexive bullshit. Have fun being ignored or called a Trump apologist though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @03:00PM
To be fair though, most of the Superfund sites are from before there was an EPA or right around the time of its inception. The approach to chemical "disposal" back then was to just dump it or ignore it, not how to safely dispose of it.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 06 2021, @03:45PM (6 children)
...why exactly should the new administration give a fuck about this "decision"? It's not an act of Congress or anything, so can't the new guy just say "we're immediately getting rid of this rule" without any legal or constitutional issues?
Like how I imagine Biden sitting down in the Oval Office the day after Inauguration and saying "okay, bring me a list of all the executive orders Trump made and a good pen; I've got some revoking to do"
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 06 2021, @03:55PM (4 children)
If it's an executive agency, doesn't that mean the president has authority over it anyway?
Great. So basically, Bitch McChinless can in theory block anybody Biden tries to appoint as replacement.
Why do I suspect whoever the previous guy was got fired by Trump lol
Oh cool. Ha
Well that helps clear things up. So did Congress pass something saying to do this, or did the EPA do it on its own, i.e. see previous post who cares?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 06 2021, @07:30PM
Dems flipped the senate, fuck bitch mcconnel!
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday January 06 2021, @10:00PM (2 children)
Not anymore. Democrats took both Senate seats in Georgia, giving them control.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 06 2021, @11:34PM (1 child)
Call me pleasantly surprised.
Now I guess we get to see how much the Dems waste their control of both houses until the midterm election.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07 2021, @12:46AM
Well it isn't a super majority, and many dems are really conservatives more concerned with how much they can whore from corporate interests. So probably a lot of wasted opportunities.
(Score: 3, Funny) by shortscreen on Thursday January 07 2021, @03:24AM
Full cynicism mode engage!
The D team is poised to take the presidency and both houses. What you just read in TFS is the excuse that they will trot out later as to why they couldn't do any of the things they said they would do, despite having the reins.