This archive report was first published on 27 November 2019.
On November 27, 2019, the editors-in-chief of six major scientific review journals expressed their strong opposition to a pending US regulation that would restrict the scientific process for developing environmental and public health policies.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been increasing acts of environmental deregulation under President Donald Trump, but a new rule would have an even more significant effect by limiting which studies EPA employees could use when drafting new regulations.
The rule, which is currently being finalised, would require EPA rule-makers to use only studies based on public data, in the name of transparency. However, this requirement would make it impossible to use studies based on individuals' medical data, which is crucial for developing environmental regulations.
For instance, studies showing the effects of air pollution on quality of life are the foundation of many environmental regulations. The EPA also intends to make the transparency rule retroactive, which could call into question decades of regulations on air quality, water mercury levels, or lead levels in paint.
"As leaders of peer-reviewed journals, we support open sharing of research data, but we also recognise the validity of scientific studies that, for confidentiality reasons, cannot indiscriminately share all data," wrote the editors-in-chief of Science, Nature, PLOS, PNAS, Cell Press, and The Lancet.
They pointed out that genetic studies, which allow researchers to find mutations that cause certain diseases, are a prime example of such studies. Their main concern is that the new rule would weaken regulations when they need to be updated, which would be a catastrophe.
