<p class="p2"><span class="s1">In a proposal she believes will help undo some of the ‘damage’ caused by the Trump-era EPA, presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren wants to ban federal agencies and courts from using so-called “junk science.”</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1">The idea is part of a larger proposal designed to curb the influence of big business on regulation (but of course if Warren is elected there won’t be any big businesses).</span></p>
<p>The proposal seeks to weed out <span class="s1">conflict of interest studies by requiring all industry-submitted research to include information about funding. </span><span class="s1">Any suspicious studies &#8211; such as opioid research submitted by Big Pharma or climate research funded by Big Oil &#8211; will be “excluded from the rule making process and will be inadmissible in any subsequent court challenges unless the research has passed rigorous, independent peer review.&#8221;</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1">The validity of such research would be determined by a &#8220;White House Office of the Public Advocate,&#8221; whose members will likely be appointed by Warren. </span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1">“It’s bad enough that the companies peddle misinformation on purpose,” wrote Warren. “But the consequence is even worse when it comes to new regulations.”</span></p>
<p>Warren&#8217;s proposal, inspired by Big Oil&#8217;s use of contrarian research on climate change to shape regulation,<span class="s1"> was introduced days after the Trump Administration announced plans to move forward with an EPA proposal that requires scientists to forfeit all raw data </span><span class="s1">&#8211; including</span><span class="s1"> medical records &#8211; for any study considered by the EPA.</span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1">Critics argue the plan would make it harder to enact new clean air and water rules because studies on pollution often include personal health records obtained under confidentiality agreements. The plan would also apply </span><span class="s1">retroactively, giving the EPA the ability to overturn or re-write </span><span class="s1">existing public health regulations.</span></p>
<p class="p2"><strong><span class="s1">The way I see it, the proposals are essentially two sides of the same coin:</span></strong></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1">Elizabeth Warren wants more information about research to make sure big businesses aren’t submitting biased studies that promote regulation in their favor. This would give the government more control over research and how it is done (a bad idea). </span></p>
<p class="p2"><span class="s1">The Trump Administration wants more information about studies submitted to the EPA in order to improve public understanding of the science behind regulations and prevent the EPA from relying on studies that are not made public.</span></p>
<p><strong>Editor&#8217;s note:</strong> The Democrats accuse conservatives of being &#8220;anti-science,&#8221; yet one of the leading Democrat candidates wants to politicize science to the point where it always agrees with their own policies.</p>
<p>The worst kind of hypocrisy, the worst kind of propaganda.</p>