
The US government is removing scientific data from the Internet - jonbaer
https://arstechnica.com/video/2017/06/the-u-s-government-is-removing-scientific-data-from-the-internet/?href=
======
kartan
> The act would disallow any scientific papers whose data cannot be
> "reproduced," which basically includes all studies of toxic cleanup and
> contamination. We can't reproduce those events, and, therefore, any data
> about them would be disallowed by the HONEST Act. Essentially, the EPA would
> no longer be able to use any scientific studies that explore environmental
> disasters.

Is the Republican government Dr. Evil in an Austin Powers' movie plot? Their
only priority is to move money from the USA citizens - probably all the world
- to the hands of a few individuals with total disregard for the environment,
or the lives of human beings.

~~~
MadSax
I don't like that Ars is cherry picking edge cases to oppose the action when
everyone knows that there are huge problems with reproducing scientific data
of any sort these days.

~~~
wolfram74
It's not 'these days' it's the intrinsic nature of false hypotheses
outnumbering true hypotheses by an enormous ratio. Even if everything were
working perfectly you'd expect false results to outnumber true results. It's
like the common example of disease screening, where even if you only get a
false positive 1% of the time, but there are only 1% of true positives in your
sample population, you're going get many more inaccurate results than accurate
results. This video walks through an example calculation and what kinds of
steps are being taken to improve on things.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q&t=218s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q&t=218s)

------
skierscott
Text of the HONEST Act:

> (Sec. 2) This bill amends the Environmental Research, Development, and
> Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to prohibit the Environmental
> Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating a covered
> action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support
> such action is the best available science, specifically identified, and
> publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent analysis and
> substantial reproduction of research results. A covered action includes a
> risk, exposure, or hazard assessment, criteria document, standard,
> limitation, regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or guidance. Personally
> identifiable information, trade secrets, or commercial or financial
> information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential must be
> redacted prior to public availability.

[https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-
bill/1430](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1430)

~~~
yorwba
This seems to me like a perfectly reasonable step towards scientifically
guided governance, so I don't get why this is framed as some kind of attack on
the role of the EPA.

I would in fact prefer if any government agency would only rely on "scientific
and technical information" if it is "the best available science, specifically
identified, and publicly available". No cherry-picking of your studies, no
reliance on confidential research that can't be verified.

~~~
politician
Hint: The loophole is in the word "best". Note how this is a 3 part test, yet
one of the conditions is subjective.

~~~
yorwba
That's what courts are for, isn't it? Someone claims that the EPA did not use
the "best available science" for some decision by pointing to what they
believe to be a better study; the EPA gets to argue why that study is not in
fact better (or admits they overlooked it); then a judge decides whose
definition of "better" is the better one; and a new piece of case law is added
that future decisions can refer to.

~~~
Oletros
So, now the scientific studies have to be validated by courts?

This is how science in the USA should work?

~~~
yorwba
No, this is how legal disputes should be resolved. The science can be done any
way the scientists want to. The EPA can use any study that it believes to have
sufficient quality. People who disagree can complain about it. The judicial
system decides whose interpretation is correct.

~~~
Oletros
What you're advocating is that science would be done by judicial branch, not
by science.

More so when the new EPA policy depends of a subjective matter and we know
what the position of the new chief is.

~~~
yorwba
I apparently have a different understanding of what "doing science" means. To
me, it means performing experiments, taking measurements, testing theories
etc. the result of which is usually some kind of scientific publication. I'm
obviously not advocating that this kind of work be done by the judicial
branch.

So what am I imagining the judicial branch to do?

Assume the new leadership of the EPA decides to introduce some new policy
based on bogus cherry-picked studies that deny the reality of climate change.
When people rightfully complain that this is not the "best available science",
the case goes to a judge.

The judge now has to decide whether or not the HONEST act was violated. To do
that, since they are themselves not in a position to judge the science
involved, they will likely have to rely on expert testimony. Given the
overwhelming consensus in the scientific literature, a judge would have to be
quite crooked indeed not to find that studies that completely fail to reflect
this are not the "best available science". They should thus find in favor of
environmentalists against the EPA.

Am I too naive in imagining this outcome?

~~~
politician
Naive, yes, but no offence intended. You seem sincere, but consider that many
judges are political appointees trained in legal matters. They will leave "the
science" up to expert witnesses who've been paid to say whatever they've been
paid to say.

Look at the court cases involving Purdue Pharma and Oxycontin, or Phillip
Morris and Cigarettes, or any of the oil companies and their oil spills, or
Nestlé and cases involving its water sources, or look at the government and
gerrymandering. The evidence of judges identifying sound science and it
affecting their decisions in major cases - those involving large amounts of
money - is not comforting.

But if that doesn't convince you, then perhaps you can show us where in the
Constitution the judiciary is delegated this power to define truth.

Have you never heard the cautionary story of Galileo?

------
ge96
Is this where people backing up this data onto other servers in other
countries come in? Maybe the Dapp block chain stuff could work here not sure.

I heard about Live Journal and Russia's censorship recently fucked up. Oh well
animals be animals I guess.

------
vivek_raj
There would be an archive of the same lying somewhere on the Internet.

