Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt listens to President Trump address reporters before a meeting at the White House this month. (EPA-EFE/Shutterstock) 
 
 This post has been updated. 
 
 Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt moved Tuesday to limit what science can be used in writing agency regulations, a change long sought by conservatives. 
 
 The proposed rule would only allow the EPA to consider studies where the underlying data is made available publicly. Such restrictions could affect how the agency protects Americans from toxic chemicals, air pollution and other health risks. 
 
 Pruitt and proponents describe the new approach as an advance for transparency, one that will increase Americans’ trust and confidence in the research on which EPA decisions are based. “Today is a red-letter day,” he told a group of supporters at agency headquarters. “The science that we use is going to be transparent. It’s going to be reproducible.” 
 
 But a chorus of scientists and public health groups warn that the rule would effectively block the EPA from relying on long-standing, landmark studies on the harmful effects of air pollution and pesticide exposure. Such research often involves confidential personal or medical histories or proprietary information. 
 
 The move reflects a broader effort already underway to shift how the EPA conducts and uses science to guide its work. Pruitt has upended the standards for who can serve on its advisory committees, barring scientists who received agency grants for their research while still allowing those funded by industry. 
 
 His announcement Tuesday came as the administrator faces increasing heat for ethics and management decisions — from both sides of the political aisle, with even President Trump privately voicing more concern over the growing number of allegations. Pruitt only focused on the proposed rule during his remarks, saying his agency was “taking responsibility for how we do our work and respecting process.” 
 
 He made clear he intends the new requirements to be lasting ones. “This is not a policy,” he said. “This is not a memo.” 
 
 The proposal will be subject to a 30-day comment period, EPA officials said. Scientific organizations are already campaigning to block the rule from being finalized. Based on previous court cases, it could prompt legal challenges if implemented. 
 
 Former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said that requiring the kind of disclosure Pruitt envisions would have disqualified the federal government from tapping groundbreaking research, such as studies linking exposure to leaded gasoline to neurological damage or a major 1993 study by Harvard University that established the link between fine-particle air pollution and premature deaths. 
 
 Scientists often collect personal data from subjects but pledge to keep it confidential. Researchers will have trouble recruiting study participants if the rule is enacted, she predicted, even if they pledge to redact private information before handing it over to the government. 
 
 “The best studies follow individuals over time, so that you can control all the factors except for the ones you’re measuring,” said McCarthy, who now directs the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard’s public health school. “But it means following people’s personal history, their medical history. And nobody would want somebody to expose all of their private information.” 
 
 House Science Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), who was with Pruitt during his announcement Tuesday, has for years sought to establish a similar requirement. His 2017 legislation, titled the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act, failed to pass both chambers. 
 
 Pruitt and Smith met at EPA headquarters on Jan. 9, according to Pruitt’s public calendar, and an email obtained under the Freedom of Information Act indicates that the lawmaker pressed the administrator to adopt the legislation’s goal as his own. 
 
 Smith made “his pitch that EPA internally implement the HONEST Act [so that] no regulation can go into effect unless the scientific data is publicly available for review,” Aaron Ringel, deputy associate administrator for congressional affairs at the EPA, wrote other agency staffers. His email was obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a scientific advocacy organization. 
 
 Conservatives, such as Trump EPA transition team member Steve Milloy, have long tried to discredit independent research the agency used to justify limiting air pollution from burning coal and other fossil fuels. A series of studies has shown that fine particulate matter, often referred to as soot, enters the lungs and bloodstream and can cause illnesses such as asthma and even premature death. 
 
 “During the Obama administration, the EPA wantonly destroyed 94 percent of the market value of the coal industry, killed thousands of coal mining jobs and wreaked havoc on coal mining families and communities,” Milloy said in a statement, “all based on data the EPA and its taxpayer-funded university researchers have been hiding from the public and Congress for more than 20 years.” 
 
 While the administration presses ahead, legal experts warn that the rule may be vulnerable to a court challenge. In unanimous decisions in 2002 and 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the EPA is not legally obligated to obtain and publicize the data underlying the research it considers in crafting regulations. 
 
 In the 2002 case, brought by the American Trucking Associations, two judges appointed by Ronald Reagan and one named by Bill Clinton wrote that they agreed with the agency that such a requirement “would be impractical and unnecessary.” The government’s defense had noted that “EPA’s reliance on published scientific studies without obtaining and reviewing the underlying data is not only reasonable, it is the only workable approach.” 
 
 A range of scientific organizations are already campaigning to block the rule from being finalized. On Monday, 985 scientists signed a letter organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, urging Pruitt not to forge ahead with the policy change. 
 
 “There are ways to improve transparency in the decision-making process, but restricting the use of science would improve neither transparency nor the quality of EPA decision-making,” they wrote. “If fully implemented, this proposal would greatly weaken EPA’s ability to comprehensively consider the scientific evidence across the full array of health studies.” 
 
 Under the proposed rule, third parties would be able to test and try to replicate the findings of studies submitted to the EPA. But, the scientists wrote, “many public health studies cannot be replicated, as doing so would require intentionally and unethically exposing people and the environment to harmful contaminants or recreating one-time events.” 
 
 Gretchen Goldman, an expert on air pollution and research director for the organization’s Center for Science and Democracy, said the rule could put some scientists in a quandary: Keeping personal health data or propriety information private would mean having their work ignored by the EPA. 
 
 “We have this incredible science-based process that works, and it has worked, by and large, even in the face of tremendous political pressures to not go with a science-based decision,” Goldman said. 
 
 The Environmental Protection Network, a group of former EPA employees, issued a report Tuesday stating that many older studies — in which the original data sets were either not maintained or stored in outdated formats — would be eliminated under the proposed rule. 
 
 And while there is no estimate yet for how much it would cost EPA to obtain and disseminate studies’ underlying data, the Congressional Budget Office has projected that Smith’s measure, if enacted, would cost the agency $250 million for initial compliance and then between $1 million and $100 million annually. A 2015 CBO analysis estimated that EPA would cut the number of studies it relies on by half because of the bill’s requirements. 
 
 Geophysicist Marcia McNutt, who is president of the National Academy of Sciences, said Tuesday that she is concerned the rule would prevent the EPA from relying on the best available scientific evidence. 
 
 “This decision seems hasty,” she wrote in an email. “I would be fearful that the very foundations of clean air and clean water could be undermined.” 
 
 Yet the American Chemistry Council praised Pruitt’s effort. “Our industry is committed to working with EPA to help ensure the final rule increases transparency and public confidence in the agency’s regulations,” its statement said, “while protecting personal privacy, confidential business information, proprietary interest and intellectual property rights.” 
 
 Joel Achenbach and Dino Grandoni contributed to this report. 
 
 Read more: 
 
 Pruitt blocks researchers with EPA funding from serving as scientific advisers 
 
 ‘Mr. Pruitt is welcome to officially fire me,’ scientific adviser declares 
 
 Anger erupts over restrictions on EPA scientists ||||| Pruitt Proposes New Rule Defining What Science Can Be Used By EPA 
 
 Enlarge this image toggle caption Jason Andrew/Getty Images Jason Andrew/Getty Images 
 
 The head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, has proposed a new rule that restricts scientific research that can be used by the agency for its regulatory decisions. 
 
 The proposed rule only allows the use of studies that make all data publicly available for anyone to analyze. Pruitt proposed the new rule as a way to make the agency's decision-making more "transparent, objective and measurable." 
 
 "The American people ought to be able to have confidence, assurance, that the findings, the record that we build ... can be assessed, it can be evaluated, it can be analyzed," Pruitt said. 
 
 The Heartland Institute, a conservative think-tank, has commended Pruitt on the rule. "For decades, the EPA has improperly claimed massive power to regulate nearly every aspect of our economy and lives. It is long overdue that the EPA should make such data and collection methods available for public review and analysis," Tim Heulskamp, the think tank's president said in a statement. 
 
 But several scientific organizations have expressed concerns. "Our concern with this is they are quite literally limiting the best available science that can be used by the EPA," says Sean Gallagher, the senior government relations officer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 
 
 The EPA's regulatory decisions are often based on epidemiological studies looking at the potential health effects of pollutants, like pesticides and particulate matter. "Those studies involve people like you and me, signing confidentiality agreements that the scientists doing the studies won't reveal my personal health information, like my vital statistics, or my death certificate, if I die during the course of the study," says Gallagher. "This is the kind of science that the EPA relies on, whether it looks at chemicals or particulates and their mortality or health effects. It involves private data." 
 
 And this private data can't be made public, he says. And so, it limits the studies available to the agency for any decision-making, he adds. 
 
 "It would not help make the science any more transparent," says Andrew Rosenberg, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group representing scientists. 
 
 When he proposed the new rule, Pruitt talked about a "replication crisis," referring to scientific studies that can't be reproduced. But that crisis applies more to the field of clinical trials, says Rosenberg, where new drugs are being tested for their efficacy. 
 
 "That's very different from what the EPA does," he adds. The agency often relies on studies that involve long-term surveys of exposure to certain environmental pollutants and associated health effects. "What are you supposed to do? Go back in time in five years and redo the survey? That's really a false flag." 
 
 The new rule would only restrict the science used by the agency and limit the agency's ability to protect public health, he says. It could affect the agency's ability to protect the public from everything from air and water pollutants to household products. 
 
 "The scientific process is [already] incredibly transparent," says Gallagher. "It's evidence-based, it follows the facts where they go. It tries to root out bias." 
 
 "The agency should be able to use all good, peer reviewed, scrutinized studies," he adds. "It shouldn't be limiting the science." ||||| A national group representing pediatricians says the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) put children at significant risk by refusing to restrict uses of the pesticide chlorpyrifos. 
 
 In a letter Tuesday to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt Edward (Scott) Scott PruittGOP chairman demands interviews with top Pruitt aides Overnight Energy: Watchdog to issue report on special EPA hiring powers | Exxon loses climate case in Massachusetts court | Park service backlog under scrutiny Watchdog requests probe into relationship between top EPA aide and man investigating him MORE, the American Academy of Pediatrics, along with the Environmental Working Group, accused the EPA of ignoring its own findings that chlorpyrifos poses specific risks to children, infants and developing fetuses. 
 
 “We are deeply alarmed by EPA’s decision not to finalize the proposed rule to end chlorpyrifos uses on food — a decision that was premised on the need for further study on the effects of chlorpyrifos on children before finalizing a rule,” the two groups wrote to Pruitt. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 “The risk to infant and children’s health and development is unambiguous,” they added. “The clear statutory language of the [Food Quality Protection Act] requires that EPA revoke tolerances in the face of uncertainty. EPA has no new evidence indicating that chlorpyrifos exposures are safe.” 
 
 The letter comes amid continued debate over the safety of chlorpyrifos, a controversial pesticide sold by Dow Chemical Co. that is used on crops like corn, almonds and cotton. 
 
 Pruitt in March denied a petition to ban its use on food crops, reversing the Obama administration, which proposed such restrictions in 2015. The EPA had previously found evidence of neurological harm and developmental problems from chlorpyrifos consumption, particularly in young children. 
 
 Dow and agricultural interest groups had pressed Pruitt to reject the petition. 
 
 Pruitt has defended his decision as being based on sound science. 
 
 “We based that decision like we base every decision. It was based on meaningful data, meaningful science,” he told a House Appropriations Committee panel earlier this month. “And it was a decision that we felt was merited based upon that and a collection of information we consider.” 
 
 But the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Environmental Working Group disagree, saying the scientific evidence clearly pointed in the opposition direction. 
 
 “Symptoms in people acutely overexposed to chlorpyrifos can range from runny noses and drooling to nausea, vomiting, headaches, muscle cramps, and even loss of coordination. Severe poisoning can cause unconsciousness, convulsions, difficulty breathing, paralysis and death,” they wrote in Tuesday's letter. 
 
 “EPA has consistently found that chlorpyrifos is not safe, particularly in regard to in-utero exposure and exposures to children,” they said, asking Pruitt to reverse his March decision. 
 
 “America’s children today and in the future deserve and demand no less.” ||||| Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt speaks with coal miners at the Harvey Mine on April 13 in Sycamore, Pa. (Justin Merriman/Getty Images) 
 
 Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department are overhauling a slew of outside advisory boards that inform how their agencies assess the science underpinning federal policies, the first step in a broader effort by Republicans to change the way the federal government evaluates the scientific basis for its regulations. 
 
 EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt decided to replace half of the members on one of its key scientific review boards, while Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is “reviewing the charter and charge” of more than 200 advisory boards, committees and other entities both within and outside his department. EPA and Interior officials began informing current members of the move Friday, and notifications continued over the weekend. 
 
 Pruitt’s move could significantly change the makeup of the 18-member Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), which advises EPA’s prime scientific arm on whether the research it does has sufficient rigor and integrity, and addresses important scientific questions. All of the people being dismissed were at the end of serving at least one three-year term, although these terms are often renewed instead of terminated. 
 
 EPA spokesman J.P. Freire said in an email that “no one has been fired or terminated” and that Pruitt had simply decided to bring in fresh advisers. The agency informed the outside academics on Friday that their terms would not be renewed. 
 
 “We’re not going to rubber-stamp the last administration’s appointees. Instead, they should participate in the same open competitive process as the rest of the applicant pool,” Freire said. “This approach is what was always intended for the board, and we’re making a clean break with the last administration’s approach.” 
 
 The head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, says he is not convinced carbon dioxide from human activity is the main driver of climate change and wants Congress to weigh in on whether CO2 should be regulated. (Reuters) 
 
 [EPA website removes climate science site from public view after two decades] 
 
 Separately, Zinke has postponed all outside committees as he reviews their composition and work. The review will effectively freeze the work of the Bureau of Land Management’s 38 resource advisory councils, along with other panels focused on a sweep of issues, from one assessing the threat of invasive species to the science technical advisory panel for Alaska’s North Slope. 
 
 “The Secretary is committed to restoring trust in the Department’s decision-making and that begins with institutionalizing state and local input and ongoing collaboration, particularly in communities surrounding public lands,” Interior spokeswoman Heather Swift said by email Monday. “As the Department concludes its review in the weeks ahead, agencies will notice future meetings to ensure that the Department continues to get the benefit of the views of local communities in all decision-making on public land management.” 
 
 Greg Zimmerman, deputy director of the non-partisan advocacy group Center for Western Priorities, said in an interview that “it just doesn’t make any sense they would be canceling meetings as they do this analysis.” BLM’s regional advisory councils include officials from the energy and outdoor recreation industry as well as scientists and conservationists, Zimmerman added. “The only reasonable explanation is they don’t want to be hearing from these folks.” 
 
 The moves came as a surprise to the agencies’ outside advisers, with several of them taking to Twitter to announce their suspensions. 
 
 John Peter Thompson, who chairs Interior’s Invasive Species Advisory Panel, tweeted Monday that he had been notified that “all activities are suspended subject to review by Depart of Interior.” 
 
 Members of EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors had been informed twice — in January, before President Barack Obama left office, and then more recently by EPA career staff members — that they would be kept on for another term, adding to their confusion. 
 
 “I was kind of shocked to receive this news,” Robert Richardson, an ecological economist and an associate professor in Michigan State University’s Department of Community Sustainability, said in an interview Sunday. 
 
 Richardson, who on Saturday tweeted, “Today, I was Trumped,” said that he was at the end of an initial three-year term but that members traditionally have served two such stints. “I’ve never heard of any circumstance where someone didn’t serve two consecutive terms,” he said, adding that the dismissals gave him “great concern that objective science is being marginalized in this administration.” 
 
 Courtney Flint, a professor of natural resource sociology at Utah State University who had served one term on the board, said in an email that she was also surprised to learn that her term would not be renewed, “particularly since I was told that such a renewal was expected.” But she added, “In the broader view, I suppose it is the prerogative of this administration to set the goals of federal agencies and to appoint members to advisory boards.” 
 
 [EPA just buried its climate site for kids] 
 
 Ryan Jackson, Pruitt’s chief of staff, noted in an email that all the board members whose terms are not being renewed could reapply for their positions. “I’m not quite sure why some EPA career staff simply get angry by us opening up the process,” he said. “It seems unprofessional to me.” 
 
 Yet Terry F. Yosie, who directed EPA’s Science Advisory Board from 1981 to 1988, noted in an email that the Board of Scientific Counselors does not report directly to the administrator or his office. “It’s quite extraordinary that such a body would receive this level of attention by the Administrator’s office,” he said. 
 
 And Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, expressed concern and said he hoped Pruitt reconsidered his decision. “Academic scientists play a critical role in informing policy with scientific research results at every level, including the federal government,” he said. 
 
 Pruitt is planning a much broader overhaul of how the agency conducts its scientific analysis, said a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Pruitt has been meeting with academics to talk about the matter and putting thought into which areas of investigation warrant attention from the agency’s scientific advisers. 
 
 The agency may consider industry scientific experts for some of the board positions as long as these appointments do not pose a conflict of interest, Freire said. 
 
 Conservatives have complained for years about EPA’s approach to science, including the input it receives from outside scientific bodies. Both the Board of Scientific Counselors and the 47-member Scientific Advisory Board have come under criticism for bolstering the cause for greater federal regulation. 
 
 A majority of the members of the Board of Scientific Counselors have terms expiring this fiscal year, along with the terms of 12 members of the Scientific Advisory Board. GOP lawmakers have frequently criticized the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)—a committee within the Scientific Advisory Board—for its recommendation that the EPA impose much stricter curbs on smog-forming ozone. The seven-person panel, which is charged under the Clean Air Act to review the scientific basis of all ambient air quality standards, is legally required to have a medical doctor and a member of the National Academy of Sciences as members. 
 
 Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who questions the link between human activity and climate change and has several former aides now working for Pruitt, said in an interview earlier this year that under the new administration, “they’re going to have to start dealing with science, and not rigged science.” 
 
 House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) held a hearing on the issue in February, arguing that the Scientific Advisory Board should be expanded to include more non-academics. The panel, which was established in 1978, is primarily made up of academic scientists and other experts who review EPA’s research to ensure that the regulations the agency undertakes have a sound scientific basis. 
 
 “The EPA routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants from the federal government,” Smith said at the time. “The conflict of interest here is clear.” 
 
 In a budget proposal obtained by The Washington Post last month, the panel’s operating budget is slated for an 84 percent cut — or $542,000 — for fiscal 2018. That money typically covers travel and other expenses for outside experts who attend the board’s public meetings. 
 
 The document said the budget cut reflects “an anticipated lower number of peer reviews.” 
 
 Joe Arvai, a member of the Scientific Advisory Board who directs the University of Michigan’s Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise, said in an email that Pruitt and his colleagues should keep in mind that the board’s membership, just like its standing and ad hoc panels, “already includes credible scientists from industry” and that its “work on agency rulemaking is open to public viewing and comment. So, if diversity of thought and transparency are the administrator’s concerns, his worries are misplaced because the SAB already has these bases covered. 
 
 “So, if you ask me, his moves over the weekend — as well as the House bill to reform the SAB — are attempts to use the SAB as a political toy,” Arvai said. “By making these moves, the administrator and members of the House can pander to the president’s base by looking like they’re getting tough on all those pesky ‘liberal scientists.’ But, all else being equal, nothing fundamentally changes about how the SAB operates.” 
 
 Chris Mooney contributed to this report. 
 
 More from Energy & Environment: 
 
 Scientists are conspicuously missing from Trump’s government 
 
 Trumps signs order at EPA to dismantle environmental protections 
 
 New EPA documents reveal even deeper proposed cuts to staff and programs 
 
 For more, you can sign up for our weekly newsletter here and follow us on Twitter here.
– There's a contentious new issue surrounding Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt, and this one has nothing to do with security. Pruitt on Tuesday suggested a new rule that would allow the EPA to only make use of scientific studies whose data has been made publicly available in full. He called it a way to bring transparency to the EPA's decision-making process; the Washington Post reports it's a change conservatives have been hankering after for some time. To understand why many scientists aren't pleased with the proposal, know these two words: epidemiological studies. A rep for the American Association for the Advancement of Science tells NPR that these studies, which can look at the effects of things like pesticides or pollutants, often don't adhere to Pruitt's standard for good reason. "Those studies involve people like you and me, signing confidentiality agreements that the scientists doing the studies won't reveal my personal health information," Sean Gallagher explains. "It involves private data." The Post reports that a letter sent to Pruitt on Monday in advance of his announcement was signed by 985 scientists who called the move a "restricting" one that would lead to "policies and practices that will ignore significant risks to the health of every American." As far as risks go, others have taken issue with Pruitt's assertion that the move would put an emphasis on science that is "reproducible." As a rep for the Union of Concerned Scientists says to the Los Angeles Times, "You can't ethically go back and redo studies on the impact of lead in drinking water on kids."