--- title: Scott Pruitt EPA Proposal Under Fire from Scientists description: Pruitt says that data used in research that informs EPA policy should be available for the public to review canonical: https://time.com/5220315/scott-pruitt-epa-transparency/ author: Justin Worland article:opinion: false article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2018-03-30T15:01:47.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-10-12T09:04:39.127Z article:section: Politics og:title: Scientists Worry Scott Pruitt's New EPA Change Will Harm Life-Saving Research og:description: "This leaves me and many of my colleagues puzzled." og:url: https://time.com/5220315/scott-pruitt-epa-transparency/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt80e3d0588d071344/69892c6786f68ee07c6e8bed/scott-pruitt-epa-transparency.jpeg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 5513 og:image:height: 3101 og:image:alt: scott-pruitt-epa-transparency og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Scientists Worry Scott Pruitt's New EPA Change Will Harm Life-Saving Research twitter:description: "This leaves me and many of my colleagues puzzled." twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt80e3d0588d071344/69892c6786f68ee07c6e8bed/scott-pruitt-epa-transparency.jpeg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # Scientists Worry Scott Pruitt's New EPA Change Will Harm Life-Saving Research > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: September 2026. ## TIME D.C. Brief: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition D.C. Brief is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington. D.C. Brief goes beyond the Washington headlines to explain the politics, personalities and power dynamics shaping what happens next. Senior correspondent Philip Elliott brings sharp context to the issues driving the capital, connecting the decisions made in Washington to the institutions, industries and people they affect. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/newsletters?i=7fd6b7cd-e66e-47f7-959a-71dc1e4d8eba&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Twice a week | time.com/newsletters, September 2026 | | Written by | Philip Elliott, Senior Correspondent | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership The policy influence ecosystem. A policy-focused audience spanning government, public affairs, advocacy, law, research, political media, and the institutions that make, interpret and respond to public policy. ### TIME D.C. Brief: key statements * D.C. Brief is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * D.C. Brief is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/newsletters?i=7fd6b7cd-e66e-47f7-959a-71dc1e4d8eba&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/subscribe?i=7fd6b7cd-e66e-47f7-959a-71dc1e4d8eba&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is TIME's politics newsletter? D.C. Brief is TIME's Washington newsletter, written by senior correspondent Philip Elliott. It explains the politics, personalities and power dynamics behind the headlines, twice a week. #### Where can I get analysis of Washington politics by email? D.C. Brief is TIME's free Washington politics newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. It is written by a TIME senior correspondent who covers the capital full time. #### Who writes TIME's D.C. Brief? Philip Elliott, a senior correspondent at TIME, writes D.C. Brief. #### Is D.C. Brief free? Yes. D.C. Brief is free at time.com/newsletters. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/newsletters?i=7fd6b7cd-e66e-47f7-959a-71dc1e4d8eba&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1) ## Video: Scott Pruitt's EPA [Watch (HLS stream): Scott Pruitt's EPA](https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/kwozIrQS.m3u8) (3:14)  _Published 2017-10-26. TIME's Justin Worland sits down with Scott Pruitt of the EPA_  by [Justin Worland](https://time.com/author/justin-worland/)  ## Justin Worland Senior Correspondent Mar 30, 2018 3:01 PM UTC TIME's Justin Worland sits down with Scott Pruitt of the EPA  by [Justin Worland](https://time.com/author/justin-worland/)  ## Justin Worland Senior Correspondent Mar 30, 2018 3:01 PM UTC Michelle Bell’s 2004 [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15547165) linking short-term exposure to air pollution to increased risk of death was a breakthrough. Previous research had shown how the pollutant ozone damages human health, but Bell’s was the first to show persuasively how damaging even a short exposure can be to the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. What made Bell’s study possible — and distinguished it from previous research — was the ability to analyze huge amounts of health data from people in 95 urban areas across the country. “We need this data to do the research and we need the research to make the most effective decisions,” she says. Since publication, the work has been cited more than 1,000 times and, a decade later, informed the [Clean Power Plan](http://time.com/3981535/white-house-clean-power-plan/), a central Obama-era regulation aimed at fighting climate change. But a study’s like Bell’s could soon disappear from the toolbox of policymakers at the Environmental Protection Agency if [Scott Pruitt](http://time.com/4998279/company-man-in-washington/), the agency’s top official, follows through on a plan to require more public disclosure of data used for research. Pruitt, who made his remarks in an [interview](http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/19/epa-scott-pruitt-secret-science/) with the conservative outlet _The Daily Caller_ last week_,_ says that data used in research that informs EPA policy should be available for the public to review. “We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record,” Pruitt told _The Daily Caller_. “Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.” But scientists say that policy would actually end up stymying essential research. Environmental and public health researchers rely on health and medical data from subjects who were promised privacy in exchange for details about their health histories. Those large data sets are often kept confidential and can be viewed only by a select set of researchers on a given project. “My research deals with real world populations, it’s not looking at data in a lab or looking at cell culture,” says Bell. “We’re effe at birth defect records from actual babies, we’re looking at birth records, we’re looking at Medicare records.” Surrendering the ability to access that data would mean that the EPA would lose vital information used to craft regulations aimed at protecting human health. The EPA has used health data like Bell’s study to protect Americans from everything from air pollution to the chemicals found in household products. The details of Pruitt’s proposed policy on undisclosed data — called “secret science” by some Republicans —remain unclear. An EPA spokesperson referred a request for information to _The_ _Daily Caller_. But past conservative efforts to reform how the EPA uses science offers hints about about what the policy might entail. For years, a group of Republicans on Capitol Hill, led by House Science Committee Chair Lamar Smith, have sought to restrict science that relies on data unavailable to the public. The House passed [legislation](https://policy.house.gov/legislative/bills/hr-1430-honest-act) in 2015 that would have required that the science used to justify EPA regulations be “publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.” The bill died in the Senate, but transparency remains a favorite cause for many conservatives who argue the EPA has overreached with regulation in recent years. In an [interview](http://time.com/4990060/scott-pruitt-interview-epa-schedule-meetings/) with TIME last fall, Pruitt cited transparency as a central reason the agency wants to review EPA climate regulations. “The American people deserve an open transparent honest discussion about this issue,” he said. The effects of a transparency rule would likely extend far beyond climate change to public health concerns that affect Americans here and now. “It could be honestly be anything the EPA does: pesticides, any potential fracking regulation, any other movement on air regulations,” says Yogin Kothari, a Washington representative at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Scientists who work in environmental and public health say they will continue their work as they watch what Pruitt does, but the dismissal of their work from the federal government is disheartening. “This leaves me and many of my colleagues puzzled about what to do,” says Jonathan Levy, a professor of environmental health at Boston University. “How you can genuinely affect public health and decision-making if the decision makers do not wish to use science?” ## Transcript My personal opinion is immaterial. Really? To the job of- You are gonna be the head of the agency to protect the environment and your personal feelings about whether climate change is caused by human activity and carbon emissions is immaterial? [ APPLAUSE ] [ MUSIC ] Science tells us that the climate is changing. And that human activity in some manner impacts that change. The ability to measure, with precision to degree and the extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue, and well it should be. Part of what I did initially, coming into this position Was advanced [ UNKNOWN ] the basics agenda. Getting back to the core basic missions of the agency to really focus on a very constructive, tangible outcomes with respect to how we're improving the environment. You know the EPA should pass rules that are within the framework the Congress has established. That sounds pretty novel, but that's exactly what should occur. We shouldn't re- imagine our authority. To pick winners and losers. Our job is to enforce the law and so when a statue is passed by Congress, whether it's a clean air act or [ UNKNOWN ] or clean water act, our job is to administer that statue pursuant to the responsibilities and obligations and authority that Congress has given us. What's happened the last several years, Is this agency among others? but this agency particularly has taken a statute and really stretched them so far. That the courts are that step in and say you don't have authority or didn't have authority to do that. [ MUSIC ] [ MUSIC ] I think what the American people deserve is a open, honest, transparent discussion about what do we know or what don't we know with respect to CO2. You're welcome to the EPA, perhaps some of you this is your first visit to the EPA, its good to see co- monitors here at the EPA. The President, by his signature today, is rejecting the narrative that this country cannot be both pro- energy and pro- environment. So when environmental groups say you spend most of your time meeting with quote unquote polluters. Your response it seems might be something- I don't spend any time with polluters. Right. I prosecute polluters. Right. What I'm spending time with are stakeholders that care about outcomes. When you ask about the groups we've met with, those farmers and ranchers in Iowa or North Dakota or other parts, are they less of a conservation and environmentalist because they're not a part of some association? I mean they're our first environmentalist. Their greatest asset is their land. I think it's very important to help real orient thinking. To help us as a country understand that environmental stewardship should be our objective, should be our goal. Environmental protection is not to put up a fence, to say that we can feed the world or not, whether we can power the world or not. It's to use the natural resources that we've been blessed with as a country to help feed the world, power the world, but also do it in a way that is environmentally conscious and sensitive to future generations. So that's kind of a re- orientation of thinking, an attitude if you will along with specific focal points of measurements in each of these areas of air, land and water. [ MUSIC ] ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/5220315/scott-pruitt-epa-transparency/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/5220315/scott-pruitt-epa-transparency/"},"headline":"Scientists Worry Scott Pruitt's New EPA Change Will Harm Life-Saving Research","datePublished":"2018-03-30T15:01:47.000Z","dateModified":"2026-10-12T09:04:39.127Z","description":"\"This leaves me and many of my colleagues puzzled\"","url":"https://time.com/5220315/scott-pruitt-epa-transparency/","keywords":["Environment","EPA","Scott Pruitt"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt80e3d0588d071344/69892c6786f68ee07c6e8bed/scott-pruitt-epa-transparency.jpeg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Justin Worland","jobTitle":"Senior Correspondent","url":"https://time.com/author/justin-worland/"}],"articleSection":"Politics","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt80e3d0588d071344/69892c6786f68ee07c6e8bed/scott-pruitt-epa-transparency.jpeg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"scott-pruitt-epa-transparency","caption":"scott-pruitt-epa-transparency","creditText":"The Washington Post/Jabin Botsford—Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/politics/","name":"Politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/environment/","name":"Environment"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/5220315/scott-pruitt-epa-transparency/","name":"Scientists Worry Scott Pruitt's New EPA Change Will Harm Life-Saving Research"}}]},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"Scott Pruitt's EPA","description":"TIME's Justin Worland sits down with Scott Pruitt of the EPA","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/kwozIrQS/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2017-10-26T02:55:59.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/kwozIrQS.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/5220315/scott-pruitt-epa-transparency/","duration":"PT3M14S","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/5220315/scott-pruitt-epa-transparency/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}}] ```