A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists documents how the Trump administration has sidelined science, and shows how science supporters and Congress can push back.
The annual “March for Life” this year tries to claim science is on their side, but it isn’t. Commentators are calling them on the contradiction between this claim and the anti-science policies pushed by organizations that aim to ban abortion.
The nationwide financial squeeze on federal employees, contractors, and the businesses that depend on them may be the most visible harm from the ongoing partial government shutdown, but we should also be aware of damage to science. The shutdown has furloughed federal scientists, stalled data collection, weakened scientific meetings, left current and potential collaborators hanging, […]
DOI has rolled out another strategy for reducing public access to information it considers unfavorable: making it harder to get information via Freedom of Information Act requests.
A new report from a wide-ranging group of organizations describes threats to the use of science in government decisions regarding public health and recommends steps Congress can take in response.
Last week, EPA held a hearing about its proposed rule to restrict the research it can use in regulating, and scores of public health advocates attended to speak out against it.
A proposed EPA rule that would sharply restrict the studies the agency can use when regulating faces pushback from the agency’s Science Advisory Board and a bipartisan group of more than 100 Congress members. The agency has extended the comment period and scheduled a hearing, but still seems determined to move ahead with a deeply flawed rule.
Last week, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt announced a proposed rule that would dramatically shrink the pool of high-quality evidence EPA can use in regulations. Pruitt claims the rule will advance transparency, but it will really just make it harder to protect public health.
NIH’s National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) has funded a randomized trial comparing moderate alcohol consumption and abstention — but most of the money for the study is from the alcohol industry. Recent revelations about early communications between scientists and beverage companies make it harder to have full confidence in the study’s eventual findings.