For decades, corporate undermining of scientific consensus has eroded the scientific process worldwide. Guardrails for protecting science-informed processes, from peer review to regulatory decision making, have suffered sustained attacks, damaging public trust in the scientific enterprise and its aim to serve the public good. Government efforts to address corporate attacks have been inadequate. Researchers have cataloged corporate malfeasance that harms people’s health across diverse industries. Well-known cases, like the tobacco industry’s efforts to downplay the dangers of smoking, are representative of transnational industries, rather than unique. This contribution schematizes industry tactics to distort, delay, or distract the public from instituting measures that improve health—tactics that comprise the “disinformation playbook.” Using a United States policy lens, we outline steps the scientific community should take to shield science from corporate interference, through individual actions (by scientists, peer reviewers, and editors) and collective initiatives (by research institutions, grant organizations, professional associations, and regulatory agencies).

Accountability must extend to highest levels of leadership

No abstract

On January 25, 2018, the United States Environmental Protection Agency withdrew a 1995 policy that mandates the use of maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to regulate emissions from major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), a category of toxic chemicals that may be carcinogenic, mutagenic, or cause other adverse health effects. To better understand the implications and scope of the change in regulatory guidance for HAP emissions of major sources that may reclassify as area sources, the increase in emissions that could legally occur under the new policy is assessed here. Based on facility-level data from a 2014 HAP national emissions inventory, it is estimated that 70% of major sources of HAPs qualify for reclassification as area sources, which could result in a maximum of 35,030 tons per year (tpy) of additional HAP emissions if all sources successfully reclassified. This amount would nearly triple the total volume of HAPs that qualifying major sources emitted in 2014. On average, qualifying sources could emit individually an additional 18.4 tpy. In the 21 states and territories that follow only federal guidelines for controlling HAPs, it is more likely that the estimates presented here could materialize compared to states that have additional guidelines for area sources of HAPs. The quantitative analysis of the potential emission changes resulting from regulatory change is instructive for industry, state and federal decisionmakers, and interested members of the public looking to understand and anticipate how relevant stakeholders will be affected by this policy change.Implications: Withdrawal of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy that mandates the use of maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to regulate emissions from major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) could result in higher emissions of toxic chemicals that may be carcinogenic, mutagenic, or cause other adverse health effects. Analysis of potential emission changes resulting from regulatory change is instructive for industry, state, and federal decisionmakers, and interested members of the public looking to understand and anticipate how relevant stakeholders will be affected by this policy change.

To protect the public's safety and health, the US government should base policies on the best evidence—and that requires keeping the work of federal scientists free from political interference. Fortunately, the latest Union of Concerned Scientists survey of federal scientists shows the powerful, positive effects of strengthening scientific integrity policies under President Biden. While challenges remain, the survey found significant improvements in scientific integrity over previous administrations, and scientists say morale and working conditions are better. A majority of those surveyed feel that their agencies have protected scientific staff from COVID-19 in the workplace, and that the agencies frequently consider the impact of their work on historically marginalized communities. Scientists report feeling mostly positive about efforts to incorporate considerations of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion into research and policy, although perceptions are mixed about the efforts’ long-lasting effectiveness.