Instead of addressing very reasonable concerns, President Trump and Vice President Pence doubled down on denial of just how severe the situation is, and pushed for schools to reopen regardless of conditions.
Restoring Science, Protecting the Public: 43 Steps for the Next Presidential Term is a resource for presidential campaigns and transition teams, endorsed by a wide range of public health, environmental, good-government, consumer, and human and civil rights organizations.
A week in mid-May saw two hearings in which federal career scientists from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) warned members of Congress that ignoring evidence will lead to far more COVID-19 deaths.
After issuing a supplemental proposal that dramatically expands the scope of its science-restriction rule, EPA limited public opportunities to comment. The Union of Concerned Scientists held a virtual public hearing, which featured a long list of comments on the rule’s problems.
As we face this global threat, the U.S. is fortunate to have many skilled and dedicated healthcare, emergency response, scientific, and public health workers addressing it. However, our ability to respond appropriately is severely hampered by an administration that disregards science and scientists and appears to put political considerations above public health.
A new three-part series from Robin Young and Serena McMahon for WBUR’s Here & Now delves into ways the Trump administration is silencing science. It basically comes down to ignoring scientists’ input when it demonstrates the need for regulation, and making scientific work for the federal government miserable.
Two year-end pieces from the New York Times capture the Trump administration’s awful toll on public health.
Jack Mitchell’s impressive career involved investigative reporting for CNN, many years of government service, and serving as director of health policy at the nonprofit National Center for Health Research. In addition to being a fighter for public health, he was a thoughtful and generous collaborator.
Recent pieces address EPA’s proposed rule that would devastate public health protections, the reproductive justice movement, unsafe water in rural California communities, and more.
Last year, many of us spoke out forcefully against a horrible EPA proposal that would allow the agency to ignore important studies when regulating, on the pretext of increasing transparency. Rather than using the extensive criticism to engage in a more thorough and appropriate process — or, as many of us recommended, scrap the proposal altogether — EPA has apparently made it more far-reaching and disastrous for public health.