Subcommittee Democrats Criticize Proposed Amendments to ERDDA
(Washington, DC) - Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittee on Environment held a hearing titled “Improving EPA’s Scientific Advisory Processes.”
The hearing was held to examine the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) independent scientific advisory boards and panels. The Subcommittee discussed draft legislation that addressed the EPA’s process for receiving independent scientific advice, selecting expert advisors, limiting non-scientific policy advice, transparency requirements, and public participation. Democratic Members criticized the proposed amendments to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDA) of 1978 as too restrictive and too industry-focused.
In her opening remarks, Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) brought greater clarity to the hearing by emphasizing inconsistencies created by the draft legislation which would harm the EPA’s scientific review process. “I noted provisions [of the draft legislation] that will not improve the Science Advisory Board structure or operation, but that instead would likely limit the quality of scientific advice the EPA receives. These provisions appear to tie the EPA’s hands by denying the agency access to a vast pool of our country’s most expert scientists and researchers in environmental science and health. I am not opposed to industry-funded experts participating on the Science Advisory Board or in the peer review process at the EPA. Their expert insight into processes and industry conduct can provide valuable guidance to an advisory body. [This Committee] should not be putting forth legislation that undermines ethics requirements and other requirements that have governed thousands of advisory boards throughout the executive branch since 1972, with the end result being an overrepresentation of industry voices on Science Advisory Boards.”
Minority witness Dr. Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Science Policy Fellow at the Union of Concerned Scientists, discussed the negative impact the proposed amendments would have on the EPA’s advisory boards and panels in her testimony. “The changes to ERDDA as described in the discussion draft will slow down the work of the EPA Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), remove long standing and widely accepted practices for dealing with conflicts of interest, reduce the expertise of SAB members, and do nothing to increase the transparency of its workings or results.”
Dr. Grifo responded to member questions and described a shift towards productive efforts to limit conflicts of interest. “We’re conflating conflict of interest and bias. I think that’s what we need to really look at, getting committees that have no conflict of interest or very minimal. It’s not about industry or non-industry. It’s about bias and conflict of interest. We’re going to find people with bias and conflicts in industry and in academia. The point of submitting a lot of information, the point of having a lot of opportunities for public comment is to be able to allow the agencies to get it right.”
Ms. Bonamici expressed the sentiment shared by the Subcommittee, “I hope that, instead of undermining the scientific advice EPA receives, we build upon EPA’s scientific legacy. I hope that we don’t spend our time today condemning American scientists and researchers simply because they are affiliated with a research university. And I want to note that scientists already recuse themselves from activities that directly or indirectly relate to finding decisions that affect them. Besides, suggesting that American scientists and researchers are adversaries of good science is not good for our country.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article