The Environmental Protection Agency shook up a key board of science advisers over the weekend by letting some of its members’ terms expire.
The move is part of an effort to inject new blood into the agency when it comes to the science behind its regulations and to make sure that science is “sound,” EPA officials told the Washington Examiner.
News of the shakeup at the EPA’s 18-member Board of Scientific Counselors began trickling out Sunday. By Monday, groups began to raise concerns about what the dismissals mean for the EPA’s scientific integrity.
“We are concerned about news that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed scientists serving on its Board of Scientific Counselors,” said Rush Holt, chief executive for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, representing scientists. “Academic scientists play a critical role in informing policy with scientific research results at every level, including the federal government.”
But the EPA took exception with the idea that anyone was being dismissed. “No one has been fired or terminated,” EPA spokesman J.P. Freire told the Washington Post.
The board is comprised of outside advisers from industry and academia that make scientific recommendations on proposed EPA research and regulations.
“Advisory panels like BOSC play a critical role reviewing the agency’s work,” Freire later told the Washington Examiner in an email. “EPA received hundreds of nominations to serve on the board, and we want to ensure fair consideration of all the nominees – including those nominated who may have previously served on the panel – and carry out a competitive nomination process.”
Other EPA officials said the moves were more pro-forma than anything else and a reflection of new Administrator Scott Pruitt’s desire to bring new faces to the advisory panel.
Many federal advisory committees are formed from industry and academia, with strict terms limits that guarantees new members are considered for the panel. Removing old faces is important, officials say.
“Administrator Pruitt wants to be clear that we’re measuring results and that the science that we are using is sound,” said one EPA official.
The official gave the example of the recent, but “overdue,” decision the EPA made on the widely used pesticide chlorpyrifos. The Obama administration had been on track to ban the substance, taking into account recommendations from science advisers who said exposure to the chemical would be harmful. But that recommendation “was heavily questionable in terms of the process, and many people did question it,” the official said.
Pruitt’s decision not to ban the chemical was hailed by farm groups as helpful to industry, which is dependent on the pesticide to protect crops and improve yields.
“We want to make sure that we avoid situations like that in the future where we’re injecting uncertainty into the marketplace,” the official said.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported that the Interior Department was looking at a similar shakeup, taking aim at some 200 advisory panels.
