Boston Globe December 23, 2003 FEDERAL 'JUNK SCIENCE' RULE DRAWS FIRE By Adrianne Appel Not quite two years ago, barely anybody took notice when a federal agency issued a benign-sounding rule requiring that any scientific data used to drive federal policy be useful, objective, and reproducible. Today, a number of academics and environmental and health organizations are charging that businesses are using the rule to squelch scientific research that could lead to important health, environmental, and public safety regulations. "This little fragment of a law that passed in the dead of night with no discussion -- it sounds so wholesome it could be a birthday card to your mother -- has turned into a monster law that's being used to harass scientists to within an inch of their lives," said Rena Steinzor, a law professor at the University of Maryland and member of the Center for Progressive Regulation, a group of 30 professors formed in the wake of the issuing of the rule. "Nothing less than the integrity and independence of science is at stake. The businesses that helped draft the Federal Data Quality Act were looking to cut down on the "junk science" that they believed led to unnecessary regulation, so they gave the public the power to call into question research they considered useless, biased or unreproducible. "Regulations were over-burdensome and caused too much paperwork," said Jim Tozzi, a pro-business lobbyist who worked on the act. Historically, the Office of Management and Budget had reviewed regulations to ensure their impact on government and business was reasonable -- but during the Clinton administration, that review was stopped, Tozzi said. "We felt somebody had to regulate the regulators," he said. Over the last two years, Tozzi and others have used the act more than 100 times to question data, including information that led the US Forest Service to classify the goshawk as a "sensitive species" - stalling Western timber interests -- and a global climate change report released by former Vice President Al Gore that could lay the groundwork for stricter air pollution rules. Critics of the act, which is under the direction of the Office of Management and Budget, say it puts scientific research on trial, not by other scientists but by businesses and entities with a financial interest in halting protective regulations. The act's standard of proof is too high to meet and will snag too much valid scientific research, according to Joanne Padron Carney, a policy analyst at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a large organization of scientists. In science, theories evolve and change over time, she said. Very rarely is there a "bright line" in which all the research on a subject shows the same results. "Does that mean you don't issue a policy until you are 100 percent sure?" Carney said. That, she said, would be an extremely difficult standard for any scientist to meet on virtually any topic. Kevin Casey, director of federal and state relations for Harvard University, said the act could "peel back a decade of regulations in the areas of water and clean air." One recent challenge from Massachusetts illustrates the power of the act and why it makes academics and advocates squirm. George Seaver of Cataumet, a member of Friends of the Massachusetts Military Reservation, invoked the act in June to try to block the Environmental Protection Agency from redefining the dangerousness of perchlorate, a chemical found in explosives, which had leached from the base into wells in Bourne. If perchlorate were considered dangerous at just 1 part per billion, instead of the current standard of 4 to 18 parts per billion, Seaver said property values in the area would plummet, wells would be shuttered, and activities on the military reservation would be further restricted. He filed two challenges, one that charged the chemical was not as dangerous as local EPA officials had begun to say. By August, the EPA decided not to re-label perchlorate as more dangerous, but EPA spokesman Peyton Fleming said the agency was not influenced by Seaver's challenge. The Maine-based aquaculture giant, Atlantic Salmon, used the act this spring to challenge government data on salmon, seeking a relaxation of restrictions on farmed salmon. The National Marine Fisheries Service successfully defended its data this summer, according to Fisheries Service spokesman Jon Gibson, and the company said it would not appeal. In August, Tozzi sent letters to the American Association of University Professors and other major university associations, and to the World Health Organization, warning that his group would invoke the act and challenge any research sent to the government that doesn't appear to meet the standards outlined in the law. Tozzi's group recently targeted research submitted to the EPA by a scientist at Cornell University and the Natural Resources Defense Council concerning pollutants in sludge. "We thought they exaggerated a lot," said Tozzi, one of three members of the board of advisers for the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, a seven-year-old government watchdog group. "They can write anything they want. Any person in the world can. What we're saying is if the agency uses it, they're bound by the quality act." Elaine Stanley, director of the Office of Information Analysis at EPA, said the EPA probably would not subject the research to the act because it was presented as part of a public comments process. The Cornell scientist, Ellen Z. Harrison, said she was shocked that someone would use the data rule -- which she described as "appalling and very frightening" -- to question legitimate science. "The idea that EPA should not be taking into consideration current, state-of-the-art information is a scary idea," she said. Copyright 2003 New York Times Company