The EPA is No Longer Using Scientists for Research
WASHINGTON D.C. - This week, Scott Pruitt announced in a speech at the Heritage Foundation he plans to ban scientists whose work has been funded by EPA grants from advising the agency and has questioned the scientist’s independence.
“There are dozens and dozens of these folks. Over the years these individuals, as they’ve served in those [advisory] capacities, guess what’s also happened? They’ve received monies through grants, and often substantial monies through grants,” Pruitt said. “That, to me, causes question on the independence and the veracity and the transparency of those recommendations that are coming our way.”
There’s no doubt that Scott Pruitt favors industry over environmentalists. This switch to more industry lead trials and experiments is proven more likely to result in positive data for said industries. Pruitt’s argument now is that the federal government~as well as the EPA itself~ has an agenda that is equivalent to industry’s agenda. That means scientists working with EPA money will have more incentive to find or document the results the EPA wants.
According to the EPA website, “The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment”. So the EPA’s main job is to research how to advance the agency’s understanding of how to best protect human health and the environment.
“Every year, EPA awards over $4 billion in funding for grants and other assistance agreements. From small non-profit organizations to large state governments, EPA works to help many visionary organizations achieve their environmental goals. With countless success stories over the years, EPA grants remain a chief tool in the advancement of human health and the environment.” But as the EPA moves towards a more industrialized structure, the results the companies produce will reflect that.
Last year, EPA grants went to determining if there is a human health impact associated with algal blooms; better understanding water supply systems, water quality and associated health risks; investigating “drinking water vulnerability and neonatal health outcomes in relation to oil and gas production in the Appalachian Basin”; and developing better ways to get nutrients from wastewater. The first three are university research projects and the fourth is a small business grant.
None of the researchers will be allowed to advise the EPA under Pruitt’s proposed order. In 2015, the federal government funded less than half the county’s research, this is the first time since World War II, that this has happened. This is partially due to the flattening of government funding but also because corporate research has increased. And although drinking water vulnerability is a very important issue, large corporations will not do positive research on the topic unless they can make money off it, and only one of these topics can be even slightly monetized.
In a new schedule released by Pruitt, it shows that he met with environmental groups less than 1% of the time. The same groups have linked Pruitt’s frequent meetings with industry to the many regulatory steps he has taken since entering office that benefit corporations. Pruitt told TIME that partnering with businesses is an effective way to protect the environment. “There aren't enough people that this agency can hire to stand on every corner in this country to look over the shoulder of all these companies and say do this or do that,” he says.
