Wibbly-wobbly, sciency-schmiency.
Wibbly-wobbly, sciency-schmiency.
I can't find the actual proposed rule anywhere. Which is bizarre. It should be somewhere. Where's the website where the public gets to comment?
Anyway, a lot of people seem very certain that Congressperson Lamar Smith (bless his heart) has convinced Scott Pruitt to propose a rule that the EPA can only make policy based on studies with publicly available data. Not because they care about transparency, but so they can throw out once and future science.
Without the source material (the proposed rule) I'm going on the innumerable articles that have popped up everywhere on this (NYT, WaPo, Forbes, etc.). It sounds like hiding under the cover of what everyone should be doing in science anyway, they are demanding that studies make publicly available the raw data from studies, including personally identifiable information on individuals and patients.
Every article on this points out that some studies are so old this information would no longer exist and that even for studies where this information exists it is not only unethical but illegal (HIPAA, among other things). Further, this "transparency" is tied to claims of "reproducibility". Which is laughable since they are not going to fund recreating those studies which could conceivably be recreated. Not to mention, as pointed out in the many articles, many of the environmental and work exposures would be not just unethical but criminal to reproduce (short list: beryllium, asbestos, CCl4, chromium, silica, benzene, radium, etc.).
Meanwhile, releasing raw data so the public can make their own judgments (look up the quotes if you're bored), is risible. Even research scientists and statisticians might take some time and effort to redo all the analysis and they're trained. Besides, it's one thing to have the processed data, which can still be a pita to go through if you have questions about the analyses and interpretations. That's always supposed to be available if you want it, although you might have to request some of it. Raw data? Good grief.
Truly raw data, especially in large environmental studies can be voluminous and overwhelming. It takes teams of trained people months and years to analyze the data from some of these studies. Are you telling me the public is going to do this for fun? A handful of people might, but that will include a measurable contingent of people who are looking to discredit the work by messing around with their interpretation.
Further, I wouldn't go through anything by hand I didn't have to. Are they going to give the public free access to programs like SAS and SPSS? Presumably, they'll train themselves. Then there's study design. Study design can be a lot harder to understand than anyone would like in complex or long term studies. Not to obfuscate, but because the questions are not simplistic. Are you going to explain that to people who are just going to tell you that clearly you are just lying and twisting things because they don't like how the numbers come out?
Like I said, I don't know what the rule itself says. If somebody finds it, and where you can comment on it, please let me know. Meanwhile, this Gizmodo article has a link to the memos from the EPA that were removed from the EPA website that are supposed to provide a backstory for some of this.
https://gizmodo.com/epa-pulls-public-documents-regarding-its-transparency-p-1825445999
https://gizmodo.com/epa-pulls-public-documents-regarding-its-transparency-p-1825445999
I can't find the actual proposed rule anywhere. Which is bizarre. It should be somewhere. Where's the website where the public gets to comment?
Anyway, a lot of people seem very certain that Congressperson Lamar Smith (bless his heart) has convinced Scott Pruitt to propose a rule that the EPA can only make policy based on studies with publicly available data. Not because they care about transparency, but so they can throw out once and future science.
Without the source material (the proposed rule) I'm going on the innumerable articles that have popped up everywhere on this (NYT, WaPo, Forbes, etc.). It sounds like hiding under the cover of what everyone should be doing in science anyway, they are demanding that studies make publicly available the raw data from studies, including personally identifiable information on individuals and patients.
Every article on this points out that some studies are so old this information would no longer exist and that even for studies where this information exists it is not only unethical but illegal (HIPAA, among other things). Further, this "transparency" is tied to claims of "reproducibility". Which is laughable since they are not going to fund recreating those studies which could conceivably be recreated. Not to mention, as pointed out in the many articles, many of the environmental and work exposures would be not just unethical but criminal to reproduce (short list: beryllium, asbestos, CCl4, chromium, silica, benzene, radium, etc.).
Meanwhile, releasing raw data so the public can make their own judgments (look up the quotes if you're bored), is risible. Even research scientists and statisticians might take some time and effort to redo all the analysis and they're trained. Besides, it's one thing to have the processed data, which can still be a pita to go through if you have questions about the analyses and interpretations. That's always supposed to be available if you want it, although you might have to request some of it. Raw data? Good grief.
Truly raw data, especially in large environmental studies can be voluminous and overwhelming. It takes teams of trained people months and years to analyze the data from some of these studies. Are you telling me the public is going to do this for fun? A handful of people might, but that will include a measurable contingent of people who are looking to discredit the work by messing around with their interpretation.
Further, I wouldn't go through anything by hand I didn't have to. Are they going to give the public free access to programs like SAS and SPSS? Presumably, they'll train themselves. Then there's study design. Study design can be a lot harder to understand than anyone would like in complex or long term studies. Not to obfuscate, but because the questions are not simplistic. Are you going to explain that to people who are just going to tell you that clearly you are just lying and twisting things because they don't like how the numbers come out?
Like I said, I don't know what the rule itself says. If somebody finds it, and where you can comment on it, please let me know. Meanwhile, this Gizmodo article has a link to the memos from the EPA that were removed from the EPA website that are supposed to provide a backstory for some of this.
https://gizmodo.com/epa-pulls-public-documents-regarding-its-transparency-p-1825445999
https://gizmodo.com/epa-pulls-public-documents-regarding-its-transparency-p-1825445999
Comments
Post a Comment