The EPA’s new ‘secret science’ rule makes sense from a risk-assessment perspective

Published May 6, 2018 4:00am ET



Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s recent announcement that EPA will not use “secret science” — that is science for which the underlying data is not available — is challenging. Whereas EPA is routinely in receipt of unpublished toxicity studies for chemicals designed for commerce, not all important scientific findings are publishable. Nor do scientific journals generally have sufficient space to include all data.

Much has been made in recent weeks of this new EPA policy, including an op-ed opposing it by former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and former acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe.

Already a print subscriber? Click here to login/register your account

Trusted reporting.Unlimited access.

Subscribe for full access to Washington Examiner coverage, expert political analysis, and subscriber-only journalism.

Get Unlimited Access

Already a member? Log in

Cancel anytime.