Tobacco Documents Online

Q-jC WR£3tjtltntDtt Vuite$ UEDNESDAY, APRIL 1,1992 EPA flunks science T he Environmental Protection Agency's re- search budget is scheduled to rise nearly 50 percent from fiscal 1991 to fiscal 1992. But congressmen like George Brown think the agency desernes even more money: Why? Because the agency is doing such a lousy job with the money it now recenms.. . Just how lousy was evident from a report a scienti- fic panel released earlier this month- At the request of EPA chief William Reilly, a group of scientists studied the agency's Office of Research and Development to determine how EPA could "tneet the goal"'of usitig "sound science" to formulate its policy decisions. The scientists held three public meetings, interviewed more than 30 people familiar with agency operations and took comments from 25 more. The panel's final report card makes it pretty clear EPA is not exactly among the gifted and talented. The scientists found, among other things: A EPA does not have a coherent science agenda.  People inside and outside the agency believe that EPA policy dictates its science. 11 EPA carries out studies without the benefit of peer rmlew or •'yuality assurance." These studies turn into ret,•ulauons with little scientific basis and hurt the credibility of the at;enc}:  The agency does not scientifically evaluate the impact of its regulations.  F:RVs interpretation and use of science is "uneven and haphawrd:'  The agency has failed to make clear that scientt- fic uncertainties make it hard to provide definitive "yes" or "no" answers to policy questions. In short, the Expert Panel on the Role of Science at EPA didn't find very much science. There's a good reason for this shortcoming that has less to do with tht: pgency itself than with the regulatory functions Cun- -gress has assigned to it. "[Mlost of our current kno'.vl- edge concerning how humans respond to environme n- tal pollutants," said the panel, "comes from research with laboratory animals under conditions very differ- ent from those that humans actually experience. Many ucertainties, therefore, are involved in deducing how the information gained through this laboratory re- search applies to people." In other words, there is no "sound science" on which to base many of EPAs regulations. There are onhtnan-animal extrapolations in which scientists expose lab rats to high doses of toxic chemicals in hopes of figuring out what disappearingly small doses would do to humans. The panel warned that without sounder science, the agency would spend time and money deal- ingwith high-profile, law-risk problems while ignoring real health problems. The agency's preoccupation wtth killer apples is just one example. Mr Miller and Mr. Reilly can reward poor perform- ance with more funding. They can hire more people. issue more reports, impose more regulations. But in the end, unfortunately, it won't mean more science. just more EPA-