WASHINGTON _ The Trump administration launched an attack on the science behind many of the nation's clean air and clean water rules, announcing a proposal Tuesday that would effectively prevent regulators from considering a wide range of health studies when they look at new regulations.
The plan by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt would prohibit what he and industry advocates call "secret science" _ studies that make use of data that are kept confidential, often for privacy reasons.
The embattled EPA chief, whose own secrecy on his personal finances and his activities in office has drawn the attention of investigators, framed the action as crucial to government transparency.
"The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end," Pruitt said in a statement. "The ability to test, authenticate, and reproduce scientific findings is vital for the integrity of the rule-making process. Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives."
Many of the country's most prominent research organizations, however, say the studies that Pruitt wants to ban are crucial to effectively protecting the environment.
The proposal threatens to cut off the federal government's access to essential data and subject science to political manipulation, the research groups say. That is because many health studies involve large amounts of patient data that can be accessed only under condition of confidentiality. Banning such studies would prevent the EPA from considering a wide range of health impacts when looking at rules to limit pollution.
Identical proposals in Congress drew protest from research groups, including the University of California system and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Environmentalists said Pruitt's motive is not to improve scientific integrity but to stifle regulation.
"This is a blatant attack on science that undermines the EPA's ability to protect our health and environment," said Tiernan Sittenfeld, a lobbyist for the League of Conservation Voters. She called the proposal a "sham" that would "limit the EPA's ability to use the best research on the health effects of pollution, which form the basis for vitally important protections."
Former EPA chief Gina McCarthy was among those accusing Pruitt of pursuing the ban in an effort to "cripple" his own agency. Studies driving some of the most important environmental protections, she said, were built around analysis of medical records that are required by law to be kept confidential.
In a recent op-ed for The New York Times, McCarthy and the former head of the EPA air office, Janet McCabe, said existing air pollution rules that are saving lives might never have been imposed under the ban Pruitt envisions. Many of those rules are built around the type of epidemiological research Pruitt wants to prohibit the EPA from using.
