July 14, 2017

Dear Friends,

With all the buzz coming out of Washington these days, you might not have heard the news that several top independent science advisors at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were recently dismissed from their roles.

Why were they dismissed? So the Trump Administration could fill their seats with lobbyists and special interest advocates.

That's not spin, that's according to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. I criticized the EPA Administrator heavily for that act in a recent letter in the journal Science.

Let me back up.

This all started earlier this year when EPA officials launched an ethics investigation into Administrator Pruitt for his public statements dismissing the scientific consensus on climate change.

Yes, you read that right. EPA was investigating its own administrator.

EPA has an official policy, originating from its 1999 “Principles of Scientific Integrity," which requires officials to “conduct, utilize and communicate science with honesty, integrity, and transparency, both within and outside the Agency.”

During a public interview, Administrator Pruitt expressed doubt about the scientific consensus that human activity is the leading cause of climate change.

That's a big problem.

97% of scientists agree with the scientific consensus on climate change. Keep in mind that scientists are literally professional skeptics. And, while 70 percent of Americans recognize that “global warming is happening,” only 49 percent know that most scientists agree with them.

In fact, nearly one third of Americans actually think there is a lot of disagreement in the scientific community on the topic of climate change.

There isn't.

So when EPA Administrator Pruitt suggested that we don't know if or how much humans are causing climate change, was he communicating the science with honesty, integrity and transparency?

This is where scientific integrity policies come in. These policies set standards for how objective, independent science will be conducted and reported by the federal government.

When scientific integrity policies are in place and effectively enforced, we can be confident that the science our government is conducting and reporting is truly objective and independent, with no meddling from powerful lobbying groups or other political or financial interests.

Without them, there is little to protect public science from the distorting effects of outside undue influence.

This matters.

Public science affects how we, as a nation, deal with climate change, air and water pollution, public health, agriculture, national security, and much more. Nearly every area of public policy is in some way shaped by public science.

Earlier this year, I introduced a bill called the Scientific Integrity Act that would establish clear, enforceable protections for scientific integrity across the federal government. So far the bill has 138 co-sponsors in Congress, and that number is growing.

Whether we fight for public science or stand aside to let political and special interests distort the facts, the effects will ripple through the lives and communities of millions of Americans for generations to come.

I continue to fight for the belief that independent science can, and should, help shape our nation's future. I hope you will join me.