John Brogan is an undergraduate at Case Western Reserve UniversityJohn Brogan
CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, Ohio — One of the bedrocks of modern culture and technological growth is the scientific method. The open transfer of peer-reviewed publications across the world leads to innovation in post-industrial and developing countries, thus increasing public awareness outside of political and partisan ideology.
However, Doug Ericksen, communications director for President Donald Trump’s 2017 transition team at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, recently stated to the Associated Press that the new administration would mandate some existing scientific literature on the EPA’s website undergo review by political appointees before being released to the public.
Although an EPA worker later reported to E&E News that they’ve since been told to stand down on the order — the climate-change research described by Ericksen to be put on “temporary hold” is still available online — the proposition from Ericksen and the new administration has brought up concerns in the scientific community. Many data specialists even downloaded the research files to independently preserve their contents.
Access to scientific information on climate change is beneficial to the public. Science shouldn’t have personal or political persuasions, such as when private companies do research on product safety with the intent to downplay their side effects (such as disproven cigarette research over the past 40 years).
Research on the environment isn’t intended to place blame for the causes of a changing climate. The climate is always changing as a result of the malleable system the Earth finds itself a part of; whether that be the biological systems within the atmosphere or the solar system itself. Seeking knowledge of our impact helps guide rational decision-making on a global scale.
When peer-reviewed publications indicate a significant human-induced impact on the climate, it is the duty of government officials to allow its publication. This is also true of literature indicating other forces are at play, potentially offsetting human involvement on the climate. The accumulation of data is what drives a best conceptualization of how the environment is changing over time.
Breaking the transparent flow of information of peer-reviewed literature via partisan officials is a step away from censorship. Political appointees are by nature in consideration for their political persuasions and ideological inclinations.
Alternative NOAA Twitter account pops up in response to Trump’s EPA ‘gag order’
Subjecting scientific literature to the mandated review of partisan officials could have a significant impact on all sectors of our communities. This isn’t a political issue but rather a concern for the scientific and business community. Consider for example the renewable energy market:
Climate science and the potential of human-induced climate change feed a demand for technology growth in the renewable energy market. Censoring climate science to the public could restrict this demand and hamper the direction of the free market through partisan intervention. This could in turn slow a natural diversification through competition of the energy market.
Scientists must have the right and privilege to communicate peer-reviewed research to the public as well as the scientific community. If partisan political appointee reviews of climate change research became standard practice, it could harm the ethical and nonpartisan foundation of the scientific method.
Limiting transparency about our scientific understanding of human involvement in climate change for political purposes is against the tenets of scientific philosophy and risks undermining a foundational element of our modern way of life.
John Brogan is an undergraduate at Case Western Reserve University and works in the solar industry for Bold Alternatives.
**********
Have something to say about this topic? Use the comments to share your thoughts, and stay informed when readers reply to your comments by using the Notification Settings (in blue) just below.
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
