Philip Morris
Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions
Fields
- Author
- Goldstein, B.D.
- Loehr, R.C.
- Nerode, A.
- Risser, P.G.
- Loehr, R.C.
- Area
- CORPORATE AFFAIRS/EEMA ARCHIVE
- Attachment
- 2501205636/2501205694
- 2501205637/2501205694
- Request
- Stmn/Rl-002
- Stmn/R1-048
- Type
- REPT, REPORT, OTHER
- Recipient (Organization)
- Epa, Environmental Protection Agency
- Document File
- 2501205235/2501205695/Ets Epa II 910000 - 930000
- Recipient
- Reilly, W.K.
- Site
- E34
- Named Organization
- Goldwin Smith
- Ks State Univ
- Leopold Scholars
- Mathematical Sciences Inst
- Natl Comm
- Natl Federation of Federal Employees
- Office of Communications + Public Affair
- Office of Congressional + Legislative Af
- Office of Management + Budget
- Office of Research + Development
- Office of Science Eng + Technology
- Office of Water
- Org Resources Counselors
- Rutgers Univ
- Science Advisory Board
- Scientific Comm
- Search Comm
- Soil Conservation Service
- Univ of Medicine + Dentistry of Nj
- Univ of Nm
- Univ of Tx
- Academia
- Advisory Comm
- Alharthy Centennial
- American Industrial Health Council
- Center for Environmental Research Inform
- Center for Environmental Statistics
- Clean Air Scientific Advisory Comm
- Congress
- Congressional Comm
- Cornell Univ
- Environmental + Occupational Health Scie
- Environmental Criteria + Assessment Offi
- Environmental Groups
- Environmental Services Division
- Epa Office of Science + Technology
- Epa Office of Solid Waste
- Epa Region 10
- Epa Region 3
- Epa Region 5
- Epa Region 6
- Epa Region 7
- Epa Women in Science + Engineering
- Epa, Environmental Protection Agency
- Expert Panel on the Role of Science at E
- Exxon Valdez
- Ks State Univ
- Litigation
- Stmn/Produced
- Author (Organization)
- Epa, Environmental Protection Agency
- Expert Panel on the Role of Science at E
- Attendee (Organization)
- American Chemical Society
- American Industrial Health Council
- Amoco
- Barrera Associates
- Bna Environment Reporter
- Business Publishers
- Chemical Specialities Mfg
- Covington Burling
- Distilled Spirits Council of US
- Environmental Policy Center
- Environmental Week
- Flamm Associates
- General Motors
- Health + Environmental Science Group
- Hima
- Inside Epa
- Monsanto
- Natl Federation of Federal Employees
- Nfpa
- Org Resources Counselors
- OSHA, Occupational Safety & Health Administration
- SC+A
- Toxic Material News
- American Industrial Health Council
- Named Person
- Wilson, J.D.
- Benforado, J.
- Clelandhamnett, W.
- Delaney, S.C.
- Goldstein, B.D.
- Leopold, A.
- Loehr, R.C.
- Nerode, A.
- Reilly, W.K.
- Risser, P.G.
- Robarge, G.
- Barrera, L.L.
- Barrera, T.N.
- Belton, K.
- Benjamin, M.
- Camp, P.J.
- Carton, R.
- Cohen, S.
- Davies, P.
- Flamm, W.G.
- Garvin, P.
- Goodell, J.
- Jarman, R.
- Jones, J.
- Kaupert, A.W.
- Keeler, A.
- Lee, N.L.
- Mcdavid, S.
- Page, B.
- Putzrath, R.M.
- Riser, S.
- Santalla, A.
- Sudja, R.
- Trauben, B.K.
- Turner, S.
- Wamsteed, D.
- Ware, P.
- Benforado, J.
- Date Loaded
- 05 Jun 1998
- UCSF Legacy ID
- qup22e00
Document Images
\/ \/ C/,
\~V\ \/V~ ~~k
~.~ i.ir! \ ~
. .rr.
J , nFA'I0f1.., I,ayif;y
y.l ,PA!P'.
'
T'~
+ [11 'AR,
qy'~n[!P!, ~
'
.'"
°s
iti
r:+
:
xl.y'w~ ~ M
. ~yvM
li
1
r' ~..
p'
r.tu':,j ~ }4' ;or
rk~NSpw~l'Sti
This report was written by the Expert Panel on the Role
of Science at EPA. The Panel is an independent advisory
committee established solely to provide to the EPA
Administrator a set of recommendations for how the
Agency can best meet the goal of using sound science
for its decisionmaking. The contents of this report do
not necessarily represent the views and policies of EPA
or of other federal agencies.
Cover photos by S.C. Delaney
Saf eguarding the Future:
Credible Science, Credible Decisions
The Report of the Expert Panel
on the Role of Science at EPA
to
William K. Reilly
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
March 1992
I
n
Mr. William K. Reilly
Administrator
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Reilly:
Earlier this year, you asked us to help identify how EPA can meet the goal of using sound
science as the foundation for the Agency's policy and program decisions. You asked us to
recommend ways to: (a) ensure that EPA has up-to-date, objective scientific information for
decisionmaldng, (b) ensure that EPA's planning, resources, and leadership produce the
knowledge base needed to achieve the Agency's new vision, (c) ensure that the research and
scientific information needs of the programs and regions are met, and (d) enhance the stature
of science within EPA and among the many constituencies with which EPA interacts.
To accomplish this task, we interviewed more than 30 individuals who have experience with
these issues. We also held three public meetings that included individuals from various EPA
offices and programs, other government agencies, industry, environmental groups, and other
organizations. In addition, we requested written comments and received letters from more
than 25 individuals, primarily from the EPA regional offices. We were impressed that so many
people wished to help EPA find better ways to acquire and use sound scientific information.
A number of consistent themes emerged from the discussions and comments. Everyone who
spoke with the Panel agreed that EPA needs its own strong science base to carry out its
mission effectively. At the same time, the Agency needs to make certain structural changes to
improve the quality of its science and the way science is used in decisionmaldng. In this
report, we have developed these themes as a series of findings and recommendations about
science at EPA. Induded are suggestions for both short- and long term measures to enhance
the use of sound scientific and technical information throughout the Agency.
We look forward to your serious consideration of these findings and recommendations
and encourage you to take the necessary next steps as soon as possible. We appreciate the
opportunity to be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Expert Panel on the Role of Science at EPA
Raymond C. Loehr, Chair
Bernard D. Goldstein
Anil Nerode
Paul G. Risser
Contents
a
Page
TRANSMITTAL LETTER .................................................... ii
EXECUTIVE SiJMMARY ...................................................... 1
THE EXPERT PANEL ....................................................... 10
BACKGROUND ...........................................................13
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I. THE MISSION AND DIRECTION OF EPA SCIENCE .................. 16
II. THE QUALITY OF SCIENCE AT EPA ................................ 23
IlL THE QUALITY OF SCIENTISTS AT EPA ............................. 29
IV. HOW THE BUDGET PROCESS AFFECTS SCIENCE AT EPA ........... 33
V. HOW EPA USES SCIENCE IN DECISIONMAKING ................... 36
APPENDICES
A. STRATEGIC DIRECTION FOR THE US. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY ........................................... 39
B. CHARGE TO THE EXPERT PANEL (MAY 22,1991)
AND AFFILIATIONS OF PANEL MEMBERS ......................... 43
C. PERSONS INTERVIEWED BY THE EXPERT PANEL .................. 46
D. RECORD OF PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE
AND WRITTEN COMMENTS ...................................... 49
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMEIVTS he Expert Panel acknowledges the support provided by EPA for this
Tendeavor. Our thanks to Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Jay Benforado, and Gail
Robarge for their diligent efforts, which were critical to the successful completion
of this project.
iv
~~-- -_-~
Executive Summary
BACKGROUND he mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to preserve
Tand improve the quality of the environment, protect human health, and
safeguard the productivity of natural resources on which all human activity
depends. To achieve these aims, the Agency is committed to ensuring that
"national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available
scientific information communicated clearly to the public" (Strategic Direction for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: EPA...Preserving Our Future Today, 1991).
EPA also is dedicated to "providing leadership in the nation's environmental
science, research, and assessment efforts." This includes:
Gathering and analyzing the data needed to
evaluate environmental risks and trends, measure
environmental results, and inform the choices of
institutions and individuals throughout society.
Promoting and supporting innovative
technological solutions to environmental
problems.
Encouraging and conducting research that
improves our understanding of health and
ecological risks.
Providing objective, reliable, and understandable
information that helps build trust in EPA's
judgment and actions.
Sharing research findings and innovative
technologies with other nations.
In addition, EPA must be able to anticipate environmental problems caused by
new and existing technologies and by societal changes.
Executive Summary 1
I
BACKGROUND Several recent reports, including Future Risk Research Strategies for the 1990s (1988,
(CONTIIwED) SAB-EC-88-040) and Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmen-
tal Protection (1990, SAB-EC-90-021), stressed that EPA must have a strong science
base to accomplish these goals. Scientific knowledge has assumed an increasingly
critical role as the environmental issues faced by the nation and the world grow
in complexity and cut across all environmental media. The Agency must improve
the scientific data and analytical methodologies needed to make sound decisions;
to set risk-based priorities for protecting health and the environment; to support
a new emphasis on protecting the health of the nation's ecosystems (such as
forests, lakes, and wetlands); and to contribute to international environmental
efforts.
THE EXPERT PANEL
ON THE ROLE OF
SCIENCE AT EPA
2 Executive Summary
In early 1991, EPA Administrator William K. Reilly established the Expert Panel
on the Role of Science at EPA as an independent advisory committee under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Expert Panel was charged with evaluating
how EPA can meet the goal of using sound science as the foundation for Agency
decisionmaking. The four members of the Panel were:
Dr. Raymond C. Loehr (Chair of the Panel), H.M.
Alharthy Centennial Chair in Civil Engineering,
University of Texas.
Dr. Bernard D. Goldstein, Director, Environmental
and Occupational Health Sciences Institute,
Rutgers University and University of Medicine
and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School.
Dr. Anil Nerode, Professor of Mathematics and N
tn
Computer Science, Goldwin Smith Chair and ~
~
Director, Mathematical Sciences Institute, Cornell ~
University. Ln
Dr. Paul G. Risser, Provost and Vice President for ~
Academic Affairs, University of New Mexico. ~
These individuals conduct extensive research programs and have had consider-
able experience with various EPA programs. In addition, they have served on
national committees evaluating scientific and technical programs.
APPROACH ver a period of four months, the Panel held three public meetings and inter-
Oviewed more than 30 individuals from EPA, other government agencies,
industry, environmental groups, and other organizations. The Panel also
requested written comments and received letters from more than 25 individuals,
primarily from the EPA regional offices.
The Panel performed no other independent evaluation of science at EPA; it did
not review current research programs, visit EPA laboratories, or examine reports
and data generated by EPA program and regional offices. Given the short time
available for the Panel's review, the Panel determined that interviews and meet
ings with knowledgeable individuals within and outside EPA would be a more
effective means of responding to its charge.
The meetings and discussions focused on five topics that are crucial to obtaining
and using sound science for credible decisions:
The mission and direction of EPA science.
The quality of science at EPA.
The quality of scientists at EPA.
How the budget process affects science at EPA.
How EPA uses science in decisionmaking.
The Panel defined science as encompassing a range of activities, induding
research and development, technical and regulatory support, monitoring, data
collection, review and interpretation of technical studies, and assessments of
health and environmental risk. The Panel intentionally included the science
activities carried out in EPA program, policy, and regional offices, since such
activities are part of the science EPA uses for decisionmaking. It also included the
quantitative social sciences, such as economics, in addition to the physical,
chemical, and biological sciences.
Executive Summary 3
MAJOR FINDINGS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
~
Overall, the Panel
affirms that EPA needs
its own strong science
base to provide the
' background required for
effective environmental
,j
protection programs.
T he Panel found that several consistent themes and concepts emerged from
the meetings, interviews, and letters. These are summarized in the findings
and recommendations presented in subsequent sections of this report. Overall,
the Panel affirms that EPA needs its own strong science base to provide the back-
ground required for effective environmental protection programs. Currently, EPA
science is of uneven quality, and the Agency's policies and regulations are
frequently perceived as lacking a strong scientific foundation. To remedy these
problems, the Panel recommends that EPA leadership undertake a deliberate and
continuing effort to create the climate, culture, and incentives necessary to
encourage superior science. The Panel recommends several specific structural
changes to enable EPA to obtain and use the high-quality science it needs to
realize its mission. These changes address science throughout the Agency, not
only in the Office of Research and Development (ORD). The Panel's central
findings and recommendations are listed below
1
FINDING: EPA does not have a coherent science agenda and operational plan to
guide scientific efforts throughout the Agency and support its focus on relatively
high-risk environmental problems.
RECOMMENDATION: The Agency has moved in the right direction with its
new issue-based planning process. EPA should further develop this process with
the overall goal of producing a broadly based, rational plan to acquire and use
the best scientific information. This planning process should apply to science
throughout the Agency. Through this process, EPA can break from the past and
shift toward the cross media, anticipatory research needed to address complex,
long-term, and global environmental problems.
4 Executive Summary
