Scientists who receive grants from the agency are conflicted: false The weight of any piece of scientific evidence, and therefore advice, is a technical matter, not a political one. But the scientific evidence is not the place to incorporate those views and attempt to “balance” them. There are many other steps in the process of deciding on a public policy option that enable interest groups such as industry, state and local governments, tribal governments, public interest organizations or affected residents to present their views. This is even explicit in the EPA SAB’s 2017 Membership Balance Plan and Charter, which defines balance as members providing a “range of expertise required to assess the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues.” Scientists can come from any sector, but there is no balance needed between their home institutions. The only balance needed is among different types of scientific expertise. The role of a science board is not to negotiate among different interest groups.īoards exist to evaluate scientific evidence. In my experience as a science advisor, that’s not the job. Pruitt seems to believe that a science advisory board needs a balance of opinions, as if it is a political body. “Balance” is needed in science advice: false In effect it means that the head of the agency is explicitly turning his back on independent science to guide his decisions.
Given his record as administrator so far, this move is not surprising, but it is still damaging. Pruitt’s rationale for making this decision rests on a set of false premises about science, grants and even the role of advisory boards. I want to share my perspective as a scientist who has served on numerous boards and panels advising government. This week Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt is expected to issued a new directive, following up on his speech at the Heritage Foundation, that bans scientists with EPA grants from serving on the agency’s science advisory committee (see coverage here ).