EPA must use the best available science − by law − but what does that mean?
Science is essential as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency carries out its mission to protect human health and the environment.
In fact, laws passed by Congress require the EPA to use the 'best available science' in many decisions about regulations, permits, cleaning up contaminated sites and responding to emergencies.
For example, the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to rely on science for setting emission standards and health-based air quality standards. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires the EPA to consider the best available peer-reviewed science when setting health-based standards. The Clean Water Act requires the agency to develop surface water quality criteria that reflect the latest science. The Toxic Substances Control Act requires the EPA to use the best available science to assess risk of chemicals to human health and the environment.
But what exactly does 'best available science' mean?
That's an important question as the Trump administration launches an effort to roll back clean air and water regulations at the same time it is preparing to replace all the members of two crucial EPA science advisory boards and considering eliminating the Office of Research and Development – the scientific research arm of the EPA.
Some basic definitions for best available science can be found in laws, court rulings and other sources, including the EPA's own policies.
The science must be reliable, unbiased, objective and value-neutral, meaning it is not influenced by personal views. Best available science is the result of the scientific process and hypothesis testing by scientists. And it is based on current knowledge from relevant technical expertise and must be credible.
The EPA's scientific integrity policy includes 'processes and practices to ensure that the best available science is presented to agency decision-makers and informs the agency's work.' Those include processes to ensure data quality and information quality and procedures for independent reviews by scientific experts outside of government.
I have seen the importance of these processes and procedures personally. In addition to being an academic researcher who works on air pollution, I am a former member of the EPA's Science Advisory Board, former chair of the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and from 2022 to 2024 served as assistant administrator of the EPA's Office of Research and Development and the EPA science adviser.
The EPA Science Advisory Board plays an important role in ensuring that the EPA uses the best available science. It is tasked with reviewing the scientific and technological basis of EPA actions.
The 1978 Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act ordered EPA to establish the board. The Science Advisory Board's members must be 'qualified by education, training, and experience to evaluate scientific and technical information on matters referred to the Board.' But those members can be replaced by new administrations, as the Trump administration is planning to do now.
During the first Trump administration, the EPA replaced several independent scientists on its advisory boards in a manner that deviated from established practice, according to the Government Accountability Office, and brought in scientists connected with the industries the EPA regulates. I was one of the independent scientists replaced, and I and others launched an independent review panel to continue to deliver expert advice.
No matter who serves on the EPA's advisory boards, the agency is required by law to follow the best available science. Failing to do so sets the stage for lawsuits.
The same law that established the Science Advisory Board is also a legal basis for the Office of Research and Development, the agency's scientific research arm and the EPA's primary source for gathering and developing the best available science for decision-makers.
During my time at the EPA, the Office of Research and Development's work informed regulatory decisions involving air, water, land and chemicals. It informed enforcement actions, as well as cleanup and emergency response efforts in EPA's regions.
State agencies and tribal nations also look to the EPA for expertise on the best available science, since they typically do not have resources to develop this science themselves.
Federal courts have also ordered the EPA to use the best available science, and they have recognized the importance of reviews by external experts.
In 2024, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied an industry petition to review an EPA standard involving ethylene oxide, a pollutant emitted by some chemical and industrial facilities that has been associated with several types of cancer.
The court accorded an 'extreme degree of deference' to the EPA's evaluation of scientific data within its area of expertise. The court listed key elements of the EPA's best available science, including 'an extensive, eighteen-year process that began in 1998, involved rounds of public comment and peer review by EPA's Science Advisory Board ('SAB'), and concluded in 2016 when EPA issued a comprehensive report on the subject.'
The District of Columbia Circuit in 2013 also affirmed the central role of science to inform revisions of National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which set limits for six common air pollutants.
In that case, Mississippi v. EPA, the court noted that the EPA must receive advice from its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, or CASAC. The court advised that, while the agency can deviate from the committee's scientific advice, 'EPA must be precise in describing the basis for its disagreement with CASAC.'
The Trump administration in 2025 dismissed all members of CASAC and said it planned to replace them.
Requiring the agency to use the best available science helps ensure that decisions are based on evidence, and that the reasoning behind them is the result of well-accepted scientific processes and free from biases, including stakeholder or political interference.
The scientific challenges facing the EPA are increasing in complexity. Responding to them effectively for the health of the population and the environment requires expertise and robust scientific processes.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: H. Christopher Frey, North Carolina State University
Read more:
America's clean air rules boost health and economy − charts show what EPA's deregulation plans ignore
How a lone judge can block a Trump order nationwide – and why, from DACA to DOGE, this judicial check on presidents' power is shaping how the government works
As federal environmental priorities shift, sovereign Native American nations have their own plans
H. Christopher Frey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump drops Nasa nominee Jared Isaacman, scrapping Elon Musk's pick
The White House has withdrawn as its nominee for Nasa administrator, abruptly yanking a close ally of Elon Musk from consideration to lead the space agency. Donald Trump said he would announce a new candidate soon. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head Nasa,' the US president posted online. 'I will soon announce a new Nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America first in space.' Related: Drugs, marital advice and that black eye: key takeaways from Trump's Oval Office send-off for Elon Musk Isaacman, a billionaire private astronaut who had been Musk's pick to lead Nasa, was due next week for a much-delayed confirmation vote before the US Senate. His removal from consideration caught many in the space industry by surprise. Trump and the White House did not explain what led to the decision. Isaacman, whose removal was earlier reported by Semafor, said he was 'incredibly grateful' to Trump 'and all those who supported me throughout this journey'. 'I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry,' he posted. 'It may not always be obvious through the discourse and turbulence, but there are many competent, dedicated people who love this country and care deeply about the mission.' Isaacman's removal comes just days after Musk's official departure from the White House, where the SpaceX CEO's role as a 'special government employee' leading the so-called department of government efficiency (Doge) created turbulence for the administration and frustrated some of Trump's aides. Musk, according to a person familiar with his reaction, was disappointed by Isaacman's removal. 'It is rare to find someone so competent and good-hearted,' Musk wrote of Isaacman on X, responding to the news of the White House's decision. Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It was unclear whom the administration might tap to replace Isaacman. One name being floated is the retired US air force Lt Gen Steven Kwast, an early advocate for the creation of the US space force and a Trump supporter, according to three people familiar with the discussions. Isaacman, the former CEO of the payment processor company Shift4, had broad space industry support but drew concerns from lawmakers over his ties to Musk and SpaceX, where he spent hundreds of millions of dollars as an early private spaceflight customer. The former nominee had donated to Democrats in prior elections. In his confirmation hearing in April, he sought to balance Nasa's existing moon-aligned space exploration strategy with pressure to shift the agency's focus on Mars, saying the US can plan for travel to both destinations. As a potential leader of Nasa's 18,000 employees, Isaacman faced a daunting task of implementing that decision to prioritize Mars, given that Nasa has spent years and billions of dollars trying to return its astronauts to the moon. On Friday, the space agency released new details of the Trump administration's 2026 budget plan that proposed killing dozens of space science programs and laying off thousands of employees, a controversial overhaul that space advocates and lawmakers described as devastating for the agency. The Montana Republican Tim Sheehy, a member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee, posted that Isaacman had been 'a strong choice by President Trump to lead Nasa'. Related: Universe's mysteries may never be solved because of Trump's Nasa cuts, experts say 'I was proud to introduce Jared at his hearing and strongly oppose efforts to derail his nomination,' Sheehy said. Some scientists saw the nominee change as further destabilizing to Nasa as it faces dramatic budget cuts without a confirmed leader in place to navigate political turbulence between Congress, the White House and the space agency's workforce. 'So not having [Isaacman] as boss of Nasa is bad news for the agency,' Harvard-Smithsonian astronomer Jonathan McDowell posted. 'Maybe a good thing for Jared himself though, since being Nasa head right now is a bit of a Kobayashi Maru scenario,' McDowell added, referring to an exercise in the science fiction franchise Star Trek where cadets are placed in a no-win scenario. With Reuters
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
This Week In Space podcast: Episode 164 — Goodbye NASA?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. On Episode 164 of This Week In Space, Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik discuss these concerning times for NASA with Casey Dreier, the Chief of Space Policy for The Planetary a wild week it's been for NASA. With drastic budget cuts looming — pending any action by Congress — then comes the sudden and unexpected pulling of Jared Isaacman for the role of NASA Administrator, with no replacement named. Then came the very public split between President Trump and Elon Musk, and a flurry of furious Twitter/X and Truth Social postings, aimed at each other with razor-sharp edges. And finally, the proposed and drastic cuts to NASA outreach and education budgets, slimming them to nearly nothing. These are strange and concerning times for America's space agency, a premier global brand and icon of peaceful American prowess. We turned to Dreier, who has been quite vocal in his concern, for context. These are critical times for spaceflight, so you won't want to miss this episode! Download or subscribe to this show at: episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at Musk vs Trump--THE BROMANCE HAS EXPERIENCED A R-U-D ispace strikes out 60th Anniversary First US Spacewalk Marc Garneau, First Canadian in Space, Dies at 76 Joined by Casey Dreier of the Planetary Society Smallest budget since 1961 NASA Workforce Changes Chart The Planetary Society reissues urgent call to reject disastrous budget proposal for NASA These Are All The NASA Missions That Trump Wants To Cancel Proposed NASA cuts to space science: 'Staggering' NASA FY 2026 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY Proposed NASA cuts to space science: 'Staggering' Senate response to White House budget for NASA: Keep SLS, nix science After Trump pulled NASA nomination, Musk ally Jared Isaacman says stint in politics was 'thrilling' Pulled NASA nomination blindsides space community: 'Major blunder' Lieutenant General STEVEN L. KWAST SAY NO TO A DARK AGE OF NASA SCIENCE Advocacy Action Center TOP TELESCOPE PICK: Looking for a telescope to see planets and comets? We recommend the Celestron Astro Fi 102 as the top pick in our best beginner's telescope guide. Finally, did you know you can launch your own SpaceX rocket? Model rocket maker Estes' stunning scale model of a Falcon 9 rocket that you can pick up now. The launchable model is a detailed recreation of the Falcon 9 and retails for $149.99. You can save 10% by using the code IN-COLLECTSPACE at checkout, courtesy of our partners This Week in Space covers the new space age. Every Friday we take a deep dive into a fascinating topic. What's happening with the new race to the moon and other planets? When will SpaceX really send people to Mars? Join Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik from as they tackle those questions and more each week on Friday afternoons. You can subscribe today on your favorite podcatcher.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
NASA, Pentagon push for SpaceX alternatives amid Trump's feud with Musk
NASA and Pentagon officials moved swiftly this past week to urge competitors to Elon Musk's SpaceX to more quickly develop alternative rockets and spacecraft after President Donald Trump threatened to cancel Space X's contracts and Musk's defiant response. Government officials were especially stunned after Musk responded to Trump with a salvo of his own: SpaceX would stop flying its Dragon spacecraft, a move that would leave the space agency with no way to transport its astronauts to the International Space Station. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. Musk later recanted his threat. But it alarmed officials at NASA, which entrusts SpaceX with the lives of its astronauts, and at the Pentagon, which relies heavily on the company to launch its most sensitive satellites. The worried reaction within space and national security agencies highlights the risks of the government's heavy dependence on SpaceX for crucial tasks, including classified missions. SpaceX, with billions of dollars in government contracts, flies people and cargo to the ISS, launches satellites for the Pentagon and develops satellites used by intelligence agencies. The concerns are compounded by the fact that its competitors have been slow to catch up, leaving SpaceX's dominance largely unchallenged and the government with few options. This account is based on interviews with a dozen people in industry and government who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal deliberations. One NASA official said that watching the feud between Trump and Musk play out on social media Thursday at first was 'entertaining.' But once Musk called for decommissioning Dragon, 'it turned really terrifying.' There was a similar reaction in the Pentagon, where a person said staff officers 'looked at each other and said, 'oh, it's not funny anymore.' There was a realization that we're not watching TV. This is a real issue.' Musk's behavior has worried NASA officials before. In 2018, NASA ordered an investigation into SpaceX's safety culture after Musk appeared to take a small hit of marijuana on the Joe Rogan podcast. But his sudden threat on social media to cut off NASA's access to the orbiting space station, which has cost NASA some $100 billion over its lifespan, 'crossed a line,' one former space agency official said. 'When you realize that he's willing to shut everything down just on an impulse, that kind of behavior and the dependence on him is dangerous. … I can tell you there is deep concern within NASA.' The rift between Musk and Trump was also fueled by the White House's withdrawal of Jared Isaacman's nomination to be NASA administrator. Isaacman had flown to space twice with SpaceX and was seen as closely aligned with Musk. SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment. Since Thursday's exchange, at least three commercial space companies, RocketLab, Stoke Space and Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin, have been contacted by government officials about the status of their rockets and when they might be available for government missions, according to four people familiar with the inquiries. (Bezos owns The Washington Post.) Officials at Sierra Space, which is developing a Dream Chaser spaceplane that could deliver cargo to the space station, were in a meeting with NASA officials on Thursday as the Trump-Musk feud was getting underway. 'Sierra Space stands ready to ensure uninterrupted support for the International Space Station,' Fatih Ozmen, the company's CEO, said in a statement to The Post. He added that 'NASA mentioned to us that they want diversity and do not want to rely on a single provider.' Dream Chaser 'is in final testing and integration at Kennedy Space Center,' Ozmen said. 'We are working closely with NASA leadership to fly the vehicle later this year.' The company is also working on a variant of Dream Chaser to carry astronauts, he said, 'which NASA is studying.' Musk's declaration also rattled staffers on Capitol Hill. A key congressional committee asked about the status of Boeing's Starliner space capsule vehicle, according to a person with knowledge of the inquiry. NASA intends to use Starliner to fly crews to the space station along with SpaceX's Dragon capsule. The spacecraft is years behind schedule, however, and during its first human spaceflight mission to the ISS last summer, it ran into so many problems that NASA decided it was unsafe to return to the crew with Boeing. But with Musk threatening to end Dragon, the congressional aide wanted to know when Starliner would be ready to fly again. In recent months, NASA has said little about the status of Starliner. But in response to reporters' questions, the agency issued a statement late Friday saying that it is planning for a Starliner flight to the space station 'in early 2026, pending system certification and resolution of Starliner's technical issues.' NASA is still evaluating whether the capsule would fly with astronauts on board or with cargo only. Even though he later recanted, Musk's threat to curtail NASA's use of Dragon could be damaging to a company that has been one of the government's most trusted partners, said Todd Harrison, a defense analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. 'It's almost like an embargo of the space station,' he said. 'Musk was saying he is going to cut NASA off from its own laboratory in space.' Harrison said the threat was reminiscent of Musk's refusal to activate the Starlink Internet system so that Ukraine could carry out an attack on Russian forces in 2022. That decision also prompted an outcry that the nation's defenses should not be in the hands of a single person or company. Given that SpaceX has experience operating its Starlink Internet satellite constellation, it had been considered to be a natural choice for Trump's proposed Golden Dome missile defense shield, which would rely on swarms of satellites in orbit. But Musk's threat was so impulsive that it will undoubtedly rattle defense officials, Harrison said, who would not look favorably on the 'idea that the nation's missile defenses could be held hostage to the twittering whims of Elon Musk.' For NASA's astronauts, Musk's social media post 'got very personal' because it could impact their ability to fly, said Garrett Reisman, a former NASA astronaut who previously worked at SpaceX. 'We shouldn't overreact to a fit of pique on social media. But when your hopes and dreams are tied up in this, you can't help but think, 'Oh my goodness am I going to fly in space?'' The Pentagon has recently made an effort to broaden the military and space industrial base, allowing for competition to drive down cost and increase innovation. The Space Force last year released a strategy that said the service would seek to avoid 'overreliance on any single provider or solution.' To allow more companies to vie for lucrative space contracts, the Pentagon recently created two 'lanes' of launch competitions. Lane 1 allows new entrants to bid on individual contracts to launch satellites that are smaller and not as vital; Lane 2 would be reserved for more powerful and proven rockets that would hoist satellites that cannot risk failure. SpaceX, however, has continued to dominate those missions. Its Falcon 9 rocket launches at an unprecedented cadence, while those of its competitors, including the United Launch Alliance's Vulcan, Blue Origin's New Glenn and RocketLab's Neutron, are still largely unproven. New Glenn has launched just once; Vulcan twice; Neutron not at all. And even before Musk's social media posting, the Pentagon publicly expressed worry about the pace of Vulcan's development even though it has won certification to fly national security missions. In a statement to the House Armed Services Committee last month, U.S. Space Force Maj. Gen. Stephen Purdy said that contractors like ULA must 'establish a culture of accountability, and repair trust deficit to prove to the [Service Acquisition Executive for Space] that they are adopting the acquisition principles necessary to deliver capabilities at speed, on cost and on schedule.' From a legal and practical standpoint, the threats by the president and Musk would be difficult to carry out, said procurement specialists. If either the government or the company opted out, they would face major financial penalties, government procurement experts said. And if the contractor pulled out, it could affect its ability to win future contracts. Still, some had warned about Musk's foray into politics and the consequences for his companies. In an interview last year, Peter Beck, the CEO of RocketLab, which is seeking to compete for national security launch contracts, predicted that Musk's acquisition of Twitter, now X, and time at Trump's side could end up hurting his businesses. 'It certainly makes people uncomfortable,' he said at the time. 'At the end of the day, if you're delivering important national security missions, the buck stops with the CEO.' Related Content To save rhinos, conservationists are removing their horns Donald Trump and the art of the Oval Office confrontation Some advice from LGBTQ elders as WorldPride kicks off amid fears
