 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 would only allow the EPA to consider studies where the underlying data is made available publicly. It could affect the agency's ability to protect the public from everything from air and water pollutants to household products.  At the signing on Tuesday, Pruitt said the proposed regulation would ensure that "the science that we use is going to be transparent, it's going to be reproducible, its going to be able to be analyzed by those in the marketplace … so that we can enhance confidence in our decision-making." Such research often involves confidential personal or medical histories or proprietary information. Scientific organizations are already campaigning to block the rule from being finalized. "It would not help make the science any more transparent," says Andrew Rosenberg, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group representing scientists. “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.
– 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."