No Science Zone

[Bubblesong]

HIPPA is intended to prevent unauthorized disclosure of protected personal health information. Despite HIPPA, I've seen continued publication of medical research in peer-reviewed journals, and of course a lot of U.S.-based research gets published based on data/research from outside the U.S., too.

Do we have any clear indication this legislation will prevent the EPA from using scientific evidence without producing personally identifiable health information on people effected?



This would already be required to happen, I would think. I don't imagine the EPA would make unauthorized disclosure of identifiable personal health information. In fact, most any publicly published scientific group study in health care presents aggregate data. Discussions of individual cases use fake names or grant anonymity by using 'Ms. M.' for example.

The government can handle and protect personal health information; Medicare and Medicaid should be evidence of that.

Richard.

Nope, took me 2seconds to find evidence the government can't keep anything secure:
What happened with the HealthCare.gov security breach -- FCW

 

[Gr8WyattWhale]

If you want to argue that the government needs ever more governing power, pointing out how they're generally incompetent is not where I would start...

 

[drrich2]

Looks like in the HealthCare.gov breach, there was not compromise of anyone's personal health information. Such a thing can happen, but that's true whether the compiling agency is governmental or private (e.g.: hospitals, health insurers, private researchers), and such info. continues to be collected regardless.

There is now, and shall continue to be an escalation of, powerful tension between the needs of our citizenry and the environment, as the coincidentally posted thread on Overpopulation's discussion illustrates graphically. Figuratively speaking, there's going to 'be blood' on both sides. The economic prosperity of the American people has been & will be at odds with environmental needs at times. Comprises will be made. And given the controversy as various interest groups grapple with the issues, there will not be a universal faith that the EPA are 'the good guys.'

After all, their ranks are filled from the human race. The same source we get CEO's, lobbyists, special interests of all sorts, varied fanatics & so forth from.

The concern that some research may be done on private land with unwritten agreements to protect private interests is interesting, but it seems they could find ways to work around such needs in some cases.

Regardless, a governmental agency laying down regulations on people & telling them 'Yeah, we've got science...but the public can't see it! Take our word for it!' isn't going to fly.

Richard.

 

[RyanT]

"The Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act, or HONEST Act, passed 228-194. It would prohibit the EPA from writing any regulation that uses science that is not publicly available."

Richard, bringing this conversation back to what I said originally, the current administration has tried to place a gag order on all EPA funded science. Fortunately, after massive outcry, that was lifted. With the HONEST Act, if our administration places another gag order, then, voila, the science is no longer publicly available and can't be used for policy decisions. Because the majority of our environmental science research comes from the EPA, that would effectively tie the hands of the EPA to write new policy. So I agree, policy should be based on publicly available data. This, however, is simply a back door attempt to tie the hands of the EPA.

Look, I understand how regulations can be frustrating for business owners, etc. But, try visiting Beijing or Mumbai. You literally can't drink the water there and you can't go outside on many days without burning your lungs from the air pollution. The EPA has done amazing things for making our country a livable place.

 

[drrich2]

That makes sense. Is there a simple, plain English article on the gag order attempted previously that someone can link for us? I don't see anything wrong with the HONEST Act in and of itself, but evidently we need to be mindful of what these 'gag orders' might do.

Richard.

 

[RyanT]

My wife works for the Dept. of Interior and thus received one of these gag orders regarding science communication. The outcry was so swift and strong, that the White House quickly began backpedaling and that is reflected in some of the news reports. Here's a couple of links.

Gag order, freeze put on EPA, other federal agencies

EPA Scientists' Work May Be Subject To Review By Trump Team

One of the most frightening quotes from these articles is that of Doug Ericksen who was heading up Trump's transition team on communications. He said "We'll take a look at what's happening so that the voice coming from the EPA is one that's going to reflect the new administration." So their view is that the EPA should reflect the administrations view, instead of a view grounded in science.

 

[Bob DBF]

"The Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act, or HONEST Act, passed 228-194. It would prohibit the EPA from writing any regulation that uses science that is not publicly available."

Sounds reasonable. It would be quite easy to make regulations, say to prohibit diving, because a study that is not available says it is necessary. If a regulation cannot be defended by showing the science that makes it necessary, then perhaps we are headed back to the age of Kings.

So their view is that the EPA should reflect the administrations view, instead of a view grounded in science.

Well, the EPA has always reflected the the administrations view, the grounded view in science is debatable since the alleged "scientific" evidence is only seen by the rule makers.



Bob

 

[RyanT]

Well, the EPA has always reflected the the administrations view, the grounded view in science is debatable since the alleged "scientific" evidence is only seen by the rule makers.

I'm not quite sure I understand this, given EPA's policy that specifically prohibits - all EPA employees including scientists, managers and other agency leadership from suppressing, altering or otherwise impeding the timely release of scientific findings or conclusions.

 

[Storker]

I'm not quite sure I understand this

Climate change denier argument. They deliberately disregard that 99% of the world's climate scientists have reached the same conclusion, because that conclusion doesn't align with their wishful thinking.

 

[tilikum]

People like bobdbf are deniers. It's funny how avid divers whose very source of income and/or recreation is being threatened by climate change yet still deny the threat.