Author
Abstract
When Congress passed the great wave of statutes to protect the environment and human health in the 1970s and early 1980s, it typically commanded that pollution reduction standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have a sound scientific basis. But as decided in its formative Nixon Administration days, the EPA was intended not to be a balancer of environmental benefits against economic and other costs, but an advocacy agency, searching for new risks to be eliminated through regulation (Landy et al. 1994, 22-45). As an advocacy agency, the EPA increasingly relies upon scientific risk assessments as a way of justifying increasingly stringent pollution reduction standards. Although the EPA routinely advertises every major new regulation as not only justified but required by "science," many such regulations entirely lack the sound scientific basis that Congress intended. This is because the EPA and its science advisors do not report objectively and fully on what is known and unknown, and with what degree of uncertainty, about the health effects of varying levels of pollution, but instead selectively marshal and understate the limits of scientific evidence supporting regulation. In their insightful and important article, Dudley and Peacock (2018) provide vivid illustrations of how the incentives of regulatory policymakers and their science advisors have caused what Congress may once have thought an unquestionably sound reliance on science in environmental regulation to go badly off track. They also set out some institutional reforms that may help regulation better reflect inherently uncertain scientific knowledge. This comment addresses both the problems Dudley and Peacock identify and some of their proposed solutions.
Suggested Citation
Jason Scott Johnston, 2016.
"Restoring Objectivity and Balance to Regulatory Science: A Comment on Dudley and Peacock,"
Supreme Court Economic Review, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 101-108.
Handle:
RePEc:ucp:scerev:doi:10.1086/696262
DOI: 10.1086/696262
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:scerev:doi:10.1086/696262. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/SCER .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.