re: Scott Pruitt Unveils Controversial Limits to Scientific Research

quote:

---

Hopefully the uproar over this absurd rule will convince them to change it into something workable - but we both know that's not likely.

---

You can't have a rule without details being flushed out.

You are a liar.

quote:

---

There is a lot of research that goes on using proprietary data. Data that some company or organization might allow to be used with NDAs in place in order to protect their intellectual property or trade secrets.

I'm conflicted on this one.

---

Exactly- it's almost as if people don't know what they'r talking about in their rush to agree or disagree with something. The fact that you have almost equal downvotes to upvotes on this statement tell us a lot about this board's tolerance for free thinkers.

I think that non elected officials shouldn't be allowed to shake down private companies without disclosing the underlying data. I'm sure you can find exceptions where it would be inappropriate but that's what debates are for. I don't understand why that's controversial.

quote:

---

Exactly- it's almost as if people don't know what they'r talking about in their rush to agree or disagree with something. The fact that you have almost equal downvotes to upvotes on this statement tell us a lot about this board's tolerance for free thinkers.

---

There is still no conflict. Nothing stops that research from being used for private applications and initiatives. This policy just requires if the research is going to be used for public applications and initiatives, public disclosure is required.

quote:

---

You can't have a rule without details being flushed out.

---

The details - the rule - are already posted. That's not to say it's final, because there's still a comment period that could in theory fix it.

quote:

---

starsandstripes

---

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN

Our little board authoritarian just got bitch slapped again

under Pruitt's EPA new rules you would still be breathing leaded gas/paint fumes. you would have no warnings of second hand smoke

because those studies used had confidential patient information that Pruitt's epa will invalidate.

quote:

---

under Pruitt's EPA new rules you would still be breathing leaded gas/paint fumes. you would have no warnings of second hand smoke

---

What a drama queen.

I will give you one very concrete example that shows this rule is a good thing. Google the word "Dicamba" and read about the controversy surrounding the EPA approving new formulations of this herbicide for use over the past two years.

In the most basic terms, the registration process under FIFRA requires the EPA to review data chemical corporations submit to approve a new pesticide, in this case new formulations of the herbicide dicamba. The company must include scientific studies and data that supports their product is safe and does what they says it does...

Problem is the companies want to protect proprietary secrets and data and can cherry pick what studies go to the EPA and can even restrict what testing independent, outside groups are able to do on the products, such as university researchers being denied the ability to test Dicamba for volatility. The EPA has a few experts, but not enough to fact check and replicate every single study associated with a product submission. So we have a situation where shite goes wrong and the impartial scientific review of the agency charged with regulating this field is called into question, with good reason.

That is EXACTLY what is happening with the new Dicamba blends, where the companies are saying "this stuff is totally safe - we showed you our data and you don't need to see any other data" and the EPA takes their word for it. Many folks including University Weed Scientists at Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota, and elsewhere are saying that might not be true and we need to shine a light on this and let scientists actually examine these chemicals before just approving them for use.

The new rule proposes that the EPA can only consider studies that are opened to public review - that is how science is supposed to operate. And of course there will be protections for proprietary data, that is a normal standard as others have pointed out.

So save me the histrionics about Pruitt not caring about the environment, this regulation is PRECISELY aimed at protecting the environment in this example, and is actually 100% against the interests of the large chemical corporations such as Monsanto.

quote:

---

wait "raw data" includes subject identifications, too?

---

quote:

---

It's not always possible to fully de-identify (or even partially de-identify) a dataset in such a way that study participants could not be identified. Think small affected populations, or studies where specific geographic locations are important for analysis. So, again, yes.

---

Yeah you are 100% wrong, did you even read the proposed rule?

Page 9-10 goes into depth on exactly this stating in part,

EPA believes that concerns about access to confidential or private information can, in many cases, be addressed through the application of solutions commonly in use across some parts of the federal government. Nothing in the proposed rule compels the disclosure of any confidential or private information in a manner that violates applicable legal and ethical protections. Other federal agencies have developed tools and methods to de-identify private information for a variety of disciplines. The National Academies have noted that simple data masking, coding, and de-identification techniques have been developed over the last half century and that "Nothing in the past suggests that increasing access to research data without damage to privacy and confidentiality rights is beyond scientific reach." More recently, both the National Academies and the Bipartisan Commission on Evidence Based Policy19 have discussed the challenges and opportunities for facilitating to secure access to confidential data for nongovernment analysts...

Here is the link if you were to actually want to read it instead of parroting news articles written by similarly ill-informed hacks (some would call liars and propagators of fake news). LINK