IsisCB Explore

Article ID: CBB234438851

Deregulatory science: Chemical risk analysis in Trump’s EPA (2021)

Mansfield, Becky (Author)

Social Studies of Science
Volume: 51
Issue: 1
Pages: 28-50
Publication date: 2021
Language: English

DOI: 10.1177/0306312720970284

URI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312720970284

Outside Links

WorldCat

Google Scholar

JSTOR

Environmental policy Risk assessment Science and technology studies (STS) Science Regulation Science and politics 21st century Trump, Donald H. United States. Environmental Protection Agency

While critics cast the Trump administration as anti-science, requiring in response vigorous defense of science, analysis of the Trump EPA reveals instead a strategy to develop deregulatory science. In its first 3 years, the Trump EPA introduced and started to implement a variety of new frameworks to remake scientific risk analysis, changing how it assesses exposures, hazards and costs of chemical harms. The article focuses on EPA frameworks associated with the Clean Air Act, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule and Toxic Substances Control Act. The new approaches compel the agency to ignore many pathways of exposure and pivotal studies of hazards, include dose-response models that treat pollution as healthful and change how costs and benefits are calculated. Yet it justifies these frameworks in terms of evidence-based decision-making, transparency and the separation of science from politics. According to its political appointees, the Trump EPA stands for scientific integrity, because it is promulgating evidence-based approaches in risk analysis that show regulation to be neither necessary nor appropriate. This is not just rhetoric but represents an effort to engage science to delegitimize environmental regulation. There is continuity between the Trump EPA and past efforts to use science to justify regulatory rollbacks: defending science by demarcating it from non-science is just as much a strategy for deregulation as it is for regulation. A key lesson is that contesting deregulation by declaring it anti-science reflects an impasse, as deregulatory approaches then also seek to take the mantle of science. The alternative to engaging in debate over demarcation is to make explicit the values and interests shaping practices of regulatory science.

...More

Citation URI

data.isiscb.org/p/isis/citation/CBB234438851

This citation is part of the Isis database.

Citations Indexes

Similar Citations

Article Langston, Nancy; (January 2018)
DOCUMERICA and the Power of Environmental History (/p/isis/citation/CBB114442000/)

Article Thomas, Julia Adeney; (January 2018)
Confronting Climate Change: The Uneasy Alliance of Scientists and Nonscientists in a Neoliberal World (/p/isis/citation/CBB677279767/)

Article Jacob Darwin Hamlin; (January 2018)
Access Denied: The Continuing Challenge to Environmental Sciences in the Trump Era (/p/isis/citation/CBB254720392/)

Article Jennie L Durant; (October 2020)
Ignorance loops: How non-knowledge about bee-toxic agrochemicals is iteratively produced (/p/isis/citation/CBB459611870/)

Book Charles Halvorson; (2021)
Valuing Clean Air: The EPA and the Economics of Environmental Protection (/p/isis/citation/CBB488007911/)

Book William M. Alley; Rosemarie Alley; (2020)
The war on the EPA : America's endangered environmental protections (/p/isis/citation/CBB217333973/)

Article Charles Halvorson; (Spring 2019)
Deflated Dreams: The EPA's Bubble Policy and the Politics of Uncertainty in Regulatory Reform (/p/isis/citation/CBB066968357/)

Article Alina Geampana; (2019)
Risky Technologies: Systemic Uncertainty in Contraceptive Risk Assessment and Management (/p/isis/citation/CBB376759289/)

Article Leonie Dendler; Gaby-Fleur Böl; (July 2021)
Increasing Engagement in Regulatory Science: Reflections from the Field of Risk Assessment (/p/isis/citation/CBB423909656/)

Article Oliver Todt; José Luis Luján; (2022)
Rationality in Context: Regulatory Science and the Best Scientific Method (/p/isis/citation/CBB425178130/)

Book David Vogel; (2018)
California Greenin': How the Golden State Became an Environmental Leader (/p/isis/citation/CBB569183355/)

Book David J. Hess; (2016)
Undone Science: Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions (/p/isis/citation/CBB272081586/)

Article Angela N. H. Creager; (September 2021)
To Test or Not to Test: Tools, Rules, and Corporate Data in US Chemicals Regulation (/p/isis/citation/CBB745420064/)

Article Anja Bauer; Alexander Bogner; (2020)
Let’s (not) talk about synthetic biology: Framing an emerging technology in public and stakeholder dialogues (/p/isis/citation/CBB333309152/)

Book David Demortain; (2020)
The Science of Bureaucracy: Risk Decision-Making and the US Environmental Protection Agency (/p/isis/citation/CBB170498113/)

Article Henri Boullier; Emmanuel Henry; (2022)
Toxic Ignorance: How Regulatory Procedures and Industrial Knowledge Jeopardise the Risk Assessment of Chemicals (/p/isis/citation/CBB183545703/)

Article Colleen Lanier-Christensen; (September 2021)
Creating Regulatory Harmony: The Participatory Politics of OECD Chemical Testing Standards in the Making (/p/isis/citation/CBB606231580/)

Article Judy Z Segal; (August 2018)
Sex, drugs, and rhetoric: The case of flibanserin for ‘female sexual dysfunction’ (/p/isis/citation/CBB311917478/)

Article Emmanuel Henry; Valentin Thomas; Sara Angeli Aguiton; Marc-Olivier Déplaude; Nathalie Jas; (September 2021)
Introduction: Beyond the Production of Ignorance: The Pervasiveness of Industry Influence through the Tools of Chemical Regulation (/p/isis/citation/CBB736985993/)

Article June Jeon; (December 2019)
Invisibilizing politics: Accepting and legitimating ignorance in environmental sciences (/p/isis/citation/CBB717880925/)