Subscribe to Receive the Daily Report

Thursday, March 5th, 2020

The Trump Administration Is Enshrining Its Anti-Science Policy in the Midst of an Epidemic

Author:     REBECCA LEBER
Source:     Mother Jones
Publication Date:     4 March 2020
 Link: The Trump Administration Is Enshrining Its Anti-Science Policy in the Midst of an Epidemic
Stephan:   Criminal Trump doesn't like science because it has an often restraining impact on his greed and grifting. Pence doesn't like science because it conflicts with his rabid literalist "christian" fundamentalism. Together they appoint lobbyists and hacks to positions that by definition require politically neutral scientific objective views. The result: whether it is increased pollution or medical preparedness the United States is increasingly unprepared to effectively deal with crises. The implications of this Trumpian devastation of American science are profound and will negatively affect your life, and the life or your family in myriad ways. Sadly, that won't stop millions of Americans from voting for Trumplicans. [caption id="attachment_50822" align="alignnone" width="300"] Credit: fivethirtyeight[/caption]

Trump shuts down EPA use of science
Credit: Washington Times

As more states learned they have rising numbers of confirmed cases of coronavirus Tuesday evening—now 16 states report at least 135 cases—the EPA made an important announcement: The agency is moving closer to finalizing a policy for restricting what health studies it can consider for any of the EPA’s scientific work. That would mean the agency would be forced only to consider studies that can publish their raw data, which in effect means ignoring entire fields of epidemiology research that relies on private, anonymized medical data to study the impacts of pollution.

“In the midst of a public health crisis, Americans deserve a government that relies on the best available science to protect everyone against harm,” Obama EPA head and President of the Natural Resources Defense Council Gina McCarthy said in a statement. “This proposal does the opposite.”

When the original draft of “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” was published two years ago, it alarmed the scientific community and attracted 600,000 comments, mostly from critics […]

Read the Full Article