{"id":14214,"date":"2018-07-16T01:00:11","date_gmt":"2018-07-16T05:00:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/?p=14214"},"modified":"2018-07-16T01:00:11","modified_gmt":"2018-07-16T05:00:11","slug":"public-health-medical-academic-and-scientific-groups-oppose-epa-transparency-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/2018\/07\/16\/public-health-medical-academic-and-scientific-groups-oppose-epa-transparency-rule\/","title":{"rendered":"Public health, medical, academic, and scientific groups oppose EPA transparency rule"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Nearly seventy public health, medical, academic, and scientific groups representing millions of Americans released the following statement to express concern over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) \u201cStrengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science\u201d proposed rule:<\/p>\n<p>We strongly oppose EPA\u2019s efforts to restrict the use of the best available science in its policymaking and encourage EPA to withdraw its proposal.<\/p>\n<p>We support the goal of improving the transparency of science and access to data. When feasible, scientists should strive for appropriate public access to data to maximize independent validation and trust in the scientific process. However, there are many credible scientific studies where the exposure of raw data to the public is infeasible, or would reveal confidential patient information.<\/p>\n<p>The research EPA relies on to make determinations is already transparent in most cases. Many scientific journals and research agencies now have policies governing the sharing of data among researchers and with appropriate access by the public at large.<\/p>\n<p>If EPA excludes studies because the data cannot be made public, people may be exposed to real harm. The result would be decisions affecting millions based on inadequate information that fails to include well-supported studies by expert scientists. These efforts are misguided and will not improve the quality of science used by EPA nor allow the agency to fulfill its mandate of protecting human health and the environment. For the sake of the country\u2019s health, EPA must not restrict this research.<\/p>\n<p>Academy of Integrative Health &amp; Medicine<br>\nAllergy &amp; Asthma Network<br>\nAlliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments<br>\nAmerican Academy of Dermatology<br>\nAmerican Academy of Family Physicians<br>\nAmerican Academy of Pediatrics<br>\nAmerican Association for Cancer Research<br>\nAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)<br>\nAmerican Association of Community Psychiatrists<br>\nAmerican Brain Coalition<br>\nAmerican College of Lifestyle Medicine<br>\nAmerican College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists<br>\nAmerican College of Physicians<br>\nAmerican College of Preventive Medicine<br>\nAmerican Geophysical\u00a0Union<br>\nAmerican Geriatric Society<br>\nAmerican Heart Association<br>\nAmerican Institute of Biological Sciences<br>\nAmerican Lung Association<br>\nAmerican Medical Association<br>\nAmerican Medical Women\u2019s Association<br>\nAmerican Parkinson Disease Association<br>\nAmerican Physiological \u00a0Society<br>\nAmerican Psychiatric Association<br>\nAmerican Psychological Association<br>\nAmerican Public Health Association<br>\nAmerican Society for Investigative Pathology<br>\nAmerican Society of Naturalists<br>\nAmerican Thoracic Society<br>\nAssociation for Psychological Science<br>\nAssociation of American Medical Colleges<br>\nAssociation of American Universities<br>\nAssociation of Public and Land-grant Universities<br>\nAssociation of Public Health Laboratories<br>\nAssociation of Reproductive Health Professionals<br>\nAssociation of Schools and Programs of Public Health<br>\nAsthma and Allergy Foundation of America<br>\nBig Cities Health Coalition<br>\nBreast Cancer Prevention Partners<br>\nBridge the Gap \u2013 SYNGAP Education and Research \u00a0Foundation<br>\nCenter for Open Science<br>\nCenter for Progressive Reform<br>\nCenter for Reproductive Rights<br>\nChildren\u2019s Environmental Health Network (CEHN)<br>\nConsortium of Social Science Associations<br>\nDavid Geffen School of Medicine<br>\nEcological Society of America<br>\nEndocrine Society<br>\nEnvironmental Protection \u00a0Network<br>\nGeological Society of America<br>\nHealth Care Without Harm<br>\nInternational Society for Environmental Epidemiology(ISEE)<br>\nJacobs Institute of Women\u2019s Health<br>\nMedical Associates for Healthy Air<br>\nNational Asian Pacific American Women\u2019s Forum (NAPAWF)<br>\nNational Association of County and City Health Officials<br>\nNational Environmental Health Association<br>\nNational Multiple Sclerosis Society<br>\nNational Women\u2019s Health Network<br>\nPhysicians for Social Responsibility<br>\nPittsburgh Institute for Neurodegenerative Diseases<br>\nSociety for the Study of Evolution<br>\nTeratology Society<br>\nThe Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health<br>\nThe Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson\u2019s Research<br>\nThe Parkinson Alliance<br>\nThe Prevent Cancer Foundation<br>\nUnion of Concerned Scientists<br>\nThe Parkinson\u2019s Unity Walk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Nearly seventy public health, medical, academic, and scientific groups representing millions of Americans released the following statement to express concern over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) \u201cStrengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science\u201d proposed rule: We strongly oppose EPA\u2019s efforts to restrict the use of the best available science in its policymaking and encourage EPA to withdraw its proposal. We support&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":8894,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14214","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ecology-in-policy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14214","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14214"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14214\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8894"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}