Latest news with #GoldStandardScience
Forbes
3 days ago
- Politics
- Forbes
Trump Executive Orders Target Precautionary Nuclear, Climate Rules
Two recent Trump executive orders (EOs), issued on May 23, 2025, contain detailed legal language, but behind these technical terms lie significant policy shifts confronting the precautionary principle. The orders—Restoring Gold Standard Science and Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)—directly challenge longstanding assumptions used in regulations. Specifically, the Gold Standard Science order emphasizes transparency in assumptions, instructing government employees not to rely unnecessarily on highly unlikely or overly precautionary scenarios. The second executive order calls on the NRC to 'adopt science-based radiation limits,' rather than relying on precautionary safety models that have 'tried to insulate Americans from the most remote risks without appropriate regard for the severe domestic and geopolitical costs of such risk aversion.' These changes have wide-ranging implications for environmental and climate science, as well as for the energy sector. Consider some examples from the EOs to see how scientific data impacts regulatory decisions. NOAA's fisheries division has the authority to issue permits allowing lobster fisheries to operate. The issue at hand is that lobster fishing gear can cause the endangered North Atlantic right whale to become entangled in fishing gear, prompting the agency to prescribe a switch to ropeless fishing methods, reducing entanglement risk by 98%. However, this method involves very expensive gear upgrades, which would render the lobster industry uncompetitive. NOAA's recommendation was based primarily on whale birth rate data from 2010 to 2018, a period during which birth rates were relatively low. Data from periods before or after those dates, when whale birth rates were higher, were not considered. The Maine lobster fisheries took the issue to court. Initially, the ruling favored the regulator, but the decision was later overturned by the D.C. Court of Appeals, which concluded that 'the agency's decision to seek out the worst-case scenario skewed its approach to the evidence.' A similar precautionary approach is seen in climate policy. The EO specifically critiques the use of the worst-case warming scenario known as Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5, which predicts an increase in temperatures by about 8.5°F by the end of the century. Although we do not know precisely how much temperatures will rise, current science suggests that RCP 8.5 is at the high end of potential warming scenarios, and more moderate outcomes are far more likely. Unless updated by the best available science, the EO directs agencies not to base regulatory decisions on such extreme scenarios. The nuclear EO also criticized the existing precautionary approach, asserting that a 'myopic policy of minimizing even trivial risks ignores the reality that substitute forms of energy production also carry risk, such as pollution with potentially deleterious health effects.' The cost of driving risks to zero is high but often invisible—like an iceberg. What we see is the agency ostensibly protecting public health by reducing radiation exposure. What remains unseen is how such policies stifle technological advances and limit our access to clean, reliable baseload power from nuclear plants. While the U.S. currently operates the largest nuclear fleet globally, only two reactors have begun commercial operations in recent decades. Beyond domestic impacts, this trend has clear geopolitical implications as the U.S. concedes nuclear leadership to nations such as China, Russia, and South Korea. Does this mean we do not care about right whales, climate impacts, or potential radiation exposure? This is a common fallacy perpetuated by those seeking to drive risks as close to zero as possible. Risk reductions always come at a cost. Just as it doesn't make sense to reduce pollution to zero (since we still want access to goods and services), it also doesn't make sense to drive all risks to zero. Rather than relying on worst-case scenarios, it is more prudent to find a middle ground and act based on the most likely scenarios, which usually come at a significantly lower cost. This is not to suggest malicious intent by regulatory agencies. Rather, they are following decades-old premises rooted in precautionary principles that significantly slow permitting processes, despite occasional successes. This week, the NRC approved NuScale's design for a 77-megawatt, 6-module small modular reactor plant. While the agency employs knowledgeable public servants, they operate under the stifling dictates of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation exposure and the "as low as reasonably achievable" standard. The LNT model assumes every bit of radiation is harmful and thus must be minimized, disregarding the cell's capacity to repair itself after minor radiation exposure. In reality, people living in areas with naturally higher background radiation don't show the health problems that current radiation safety models predict they should have. The executive order explicitly states that these models 'lack sound scientific basis.' Will agencies respond positively to the president's directives? This is not the first time the NRC has been asked to reconsider the LNT model. Nuclear pundit Jack Devanney pointed out that "the NRC has been asked to reconsider LNT at least three times. The NRC pondered the issue for three years before proclaiming—to no one's surprise—that it was sticking with LNT.' In other words, the nuclear EO might lack sufficient teeth to force the agencies to change their standard operating practices. Yet, as Adam Stein, Director for Nuclear Energy Innovation at the Breakthrough Institute, put it, "the executive orders say the quiet part out loud." Stein also noted that because the NRC was merely asked to reconsider rather than explicitly abandon its precautionary models, the EOs represented a "big missed opportunity to finally align the NRC with a modern, risk-informed approach." Finally, the precautionary principle is widespread not just federally, but at the state level as well. For example, the Indian Point nuclear power plant, which previously supplied New York City with power, was ordered to shut down due to concerns about the health of Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River—not because of radiation concerns, but rather fears that cooling water from the nuclear plant could harm sturgeon eggs. The worst-case scenario was that fish populations might be damaged. Ultimately, it was New York State's energy security, emissions profile, and local employment that were harmed. In the end, obscure scientific concepts drive many regulatory decisions, which are often justified under the guise of protecting public health or the environment. A gold standard in science means all scientific decisions are transparent, clearly outlining assumptions, and ensuring that while worst-case scenarios are considered, they do not solely drive our policy-making.
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Trump's new ‘gold standard' rule will destroy American science as we know it
Science is under siege. On Friday evening, the White House released an executive order called Restoring Gold Standard Science. At face value, this order promises a commitment to federally funded research that is 'transparent, rigorous, and impactful' and policy that is informed by 'the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available'. But hidden beneath the scientific rhetoric is a plan that would destroy scientific independence in the US by giving political appointees the latitude to dismiss entire bodies of research and punish researchers who fail to fall in line with the current administration's objectives. In other words: this is Fool's-Gold Standard Science. According to the order, 'Gold Standard Science means science conducted in a manner that is: (i) reproducible; (ii) transparent; (iii) communicative of error and uncertainty; (iv) collaborative and interdisciplinary; (v) skeptical of its findings and assumptions; (vi) structured for falsifiability of hypotheses; (vii) subject to unbiased peer review; (viii) accepting of negative results as positive outcomes; and (ix) without conflicts of interest.' The order mimics the language of an active reform movement in science to increase rigor and transparency of research – a movement commonly called the open science movement, to which some of us are contributors. Science is, by nature, a continuous work in progress; constantly self-scrutinized and always looking for opportunities to improve. We should all be able to celebrate any administration's investment in improving the openness, integrity, and reproducibility of research. But, with this executive order, we cannot. Instead of being about open science, it grants administration-aligned political appointees the power to designate any research as scientific misconduct based on their own 'judgment' and includes the power to punish the scientists involved accordingly; this would weaponize government counter to the public interest. The consequences of state-dictated science can be catastrophic. When Trofim Lysenko, a researcher who denied the reality of genetic inheritance and natural selection, won favor with Joseph Stalin and took control of agriculture in the Soviet Union, thousands of scientists who disagreed with him were fired, imprisoned, or killed. His disastrous agricultural prescriptions ultimately led to famines that killed millions in the USSR and in China. Science does not proceed by sequentially establishing unassailable conclusions, but rather by steadily accumulating numerous lines of evidence, scrutinizing its weaknesses, and pursuing additional evidence. Almost any study, any source of evidence, any conclusion, falls short of meeting every aspect of the White House's list of best practices. This has nothing to do with laziness, let alone misconduct by individual scientists; it's simply a consequence of the fact that science is difficult. Scientists constantly grapple with uncertainty, and nevertheless can ultimately arrive at robust, valid conclusions, such as the fact that vaccines do not cause autism, and that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet and wreaking havoc on our climate. Under the terms of the executive order, political appointees loyal to the president can willfully find justification to label any research finding as scientific misconduct, and then penalize the researchers involved accordingly. This administration has already appropriated the language of open science to assert control over and deal heavy blows to the scientific ecosystem of the United States – including cancelling thousands of active research grants in climate science, misinformation and disinformation, vaccines, mental health, women's health, LGBTQ+ health, and stem education. Calls to 'revisit' decades of work that establish vaccine safety beyond a shadow of a doubt 'because the only way you can get good science is through replication', and demands for unethical vaccine clinical trial practices and additional data, further echo the bad-faith adoption of open science language. Trump has also advanced a congressional budget calling for massive cuts to federal spending on research and development and levied significant retaliation against universities that have not fallen in line with his demands. He has gone so far as to propose a rule change by the office of personnel management that would install policy police at all levels of federal agencies, converting thousands of employees into presidential appointees who can be summarily fired without due process for any arbitrary political reason. This new executive order raises the concern that many of our best scientists would be targeted in Lysenkoist purges. Meanwhile, the threat of such actions is already having a chilling effect on all scientists. Science is the most important long-term investment for humanity. Interference in the scientific process by political arbiters stifles scientists' freedom of speech and thought. Science depends on unfettered speech – free and continuous discussion of data and ideas. We, like the rest of the scientific community, aspire to achieve greater openness, integrity, and reproducibility of research to accelerate discovery, advance treatments, and foster solutions to meet society's greatest challenges. Meeting that objective will not occur by centralizing power over science and scientists according to the whims of any political administration. We see this executive order for what it is: an attempt to sell America's future for pyrite. Colette Delawalla is a PhD candidate at Emory University and executive director of Stand Up for Science. Victor Ambros is a 2024 Nobel laureate in physiology or medicine at the Chan Medical School, University of Massachusetts. Carl Bergstrom is professor of biology at the University of Washington. Carol Greider is a 2009 Nobel laureate in medicine and distinguished professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Michael Mann is the presidential distinguished professor of earth and environmental science and director of the center for science, sustainability, and the media at the University of Pennsylvania. Brian Nosek is executive director of the Center for Open Science and professor of psychology at the University of Virginia
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
FDA's latest MAHA move would wipe out kids' fluoride prescriptions as health risk evidence mounts
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced Tuesday it is taking a step toward "ending outdated practices" related to children's health and will begin removing ingestible fluoride prescription drug products for kids from the market. Health and Human Services and the FDA are "taking bold action to protect America's children by initiating the removal of unapproved, ingestible fluoride prescription drug products from the market," Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon told Fox News Digital Tuesday. "These fluoride prescription drug products, given to infants and toddlers, have never been approved by the FDA and pose real risks to developing children — including harm to the gut microbiome, potential thyroid dysfunction, weight gain, and even reduced IQ. This is not just a public health issue — it's a moral issue." "This marks another step toward delivering on our Make America Healthy Again promise — by ending outdated practices and putting Gold Standard Science at the center of children's health," he added. The FDA announced earlier Tuesday it had begun the initial steps of removing "concentrated ingestible fluoride prescription drug products for children from the market." Fluoride is frequently used to protect teeth from decay and cavities. Desantis Signs Bill Banning Fluoride Additives In Florida Public Water: 'Hydrate, Not Medicate' Read On The Fox News App Ingestible fluoride, such as tablets prescribed to kids at high-risk for cavities, was never approved by the FDA, according to its chief, Marty Makary, and have been "shown to alter the gut microbiome," as well as possible association "between fluoride and thyroid disorders, weight gain and possibly decreased IQ." Ingestible fluoride is swallowed, and differs from other fluoride products, such as toothpaste bolstered with fluoride. Utah Bans Fluoride From Public Drinking Water, Aligning With Maha Movement Makary said in a Tuesday press release that children can avoid heavy sugar intake to dodge cavities instead of "altering a child's microbiome." The gut microbiome is the ecosystem of microorganisms that live in a person's intestines. "The best way to prevent cavities in children is by avoiding excessive sugar intake and good dental hygiene, not by altering a child's microbiome," Makary said in the press release. "For the same reason that fluoride may kill bacteria on teeth, it may also kill intestinal bacteria important for a child's health." "I am instructing our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research to evaluate the evidence regarding the risks of systemic fluoride exposure from FDA-regulated pediatric ingestible fluoride prescription drug products to better inform parents and the medical community on this emerging area. When it comes to children, we should err on the side of safety." Fluoride Exposure Linked To 'Detrimental Effects' On Health Of Pregnant Women, Infants Nixon told Fox News Digital that HHS and the FDA will launch a full safety review, including with public input, as health leaders work to finalize details of the plan by Oct. 31. "The American people deserve transparency and accountability," Nixon said. "The Department will issue new guidelines promoting safe, effective dental hygiene without compromising gut health." HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. added in the press release that "ending the use of ingestible fluoride is long overdue." Rfk Jr. Calls For Removal Of Fluoride From Drinking Water, Sparking Debate "I'm grateful to Commissioner Makary for his leadership on this vital issue — one that directly safeguards the health and development of our children," Kennedy said. "This decision brings us one step closer to delivering on President Trump's promise to Make America Healthy Again." Kennedy posted to X following President Donald Trump's election win in November 2024 that the Trump administration "will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water" upon Inauguration Day. Children Exposed To Higher Fluoride Levels Found To Have Lower Iqs, Study Reveals "Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease. President @realDonaldTrump and First Lady @Melaniatrump want to Make America Healthy Again," he continued. Trump told the media shortly after Kennedy's X post that such a plan to remove fluoride from water systems "sounds OK to me." First State To Ban Fluoride In Drinking Water Will Heed Maha Movement's Call To Action Utah became the first state in the nation to ban fluoride from public water systems in May, while Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill May 6 banning fluoride additives to the state's public water supply. That law will take effect July 1. "Jamming fluoride in the water supply … is essentially a forced medication," DeSantis said during a news conference May 6 in Tallahassee, Florida. "At the end of the day, we should all agree that people deserve informed consent." Amid states moving to ban fluoride from water systems specifically, local dentists and critics of the move claim it will hurt residents who rely on the fluoride to bolster dental article source: FDA's latest MAHA move would wipe out kids' fluoride prescriptions as health risk evidence mounts
Politico
11-05-2025
- Health
- Politico
Trump injected uncertainty into federal contracting. Donor brains went to the grave.
President Donald Trump's push to cut billions of dollars in government contracts is rattling the niche community of scientists who collect, study and share human brains. Two of the country's brain banks, which have worked with the government to store and distribute specimens to researchers studying diseases like Parkinson's and ALS for more than a decade, told POLITICO they had temporarily stopped taking new donations for fear the administration would not renew their contracts. Even though both facilities — home to nearly 8,000 brains between them — eventually received six-month extensions from the National Institutes of Health, the relief came too close to a May 1 deadline. The director of the University of Maryland Brain and Tissue Bank said it turned away as many as 30 brains from people hoping to do something positive with the remains of a loved one who lived with a neurological disease. The Mount Sinai Brain Bank in New York would have accepted roughly 10 more if it had known its contract was being renewed, according to its program director. The funding whiplash demonstrates some of the practical consequences of the Trump administration's rapid-fire approach to cutting federal spending, where even the potential for funding lapses create real setbacks. 'Not knowing when, or even if this extension was going to happen, it was very problematic,' said Tom Blanchard, director of Maryland's brain bank. The window for collecting a brain for research after death is short: just 24 hours, so families of would-be donors had little choice but to give up. Unsure whether it'd be able to pay staff after April, Mount Sinai Brain Bank sent layoff notices to its nearly two dozen employees, then revoked them when it learned of the funding extension less than 18 hours before the deadline, said program director Harry Haroutunian. In the month before the contract expiration, the program, which stores 2,640 brains in 43 freezers set at minus 80 degrees Celsius, stopped taking them. Mount Sinai typically takes two brain donations a week. 'I wasn't about to accept a donation and then not be in a position to actually characterize the brain and distribute it to our investigators,' Haroutunian said. When asked to respond to researcher concerns about funding uncertainty, a spokesperson at the Department of Health and Human Services said that leaders at HHS, the parent agency of the National Institutes of Health, maintain continuous communication with NIH leadership to ensure smooth funding. The spokesperson said NIH remains committed to 'rigorous, Gold Standard Science.' Susan Mojaverian felt heartened by the idea of donating her brother James' brain to the NIH. She'd discussed the plan with him prior to his death last month. James, who died at 72, was diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was 16. Furthering research into schizophrenia was important to them. Susan and James participated in an NIH schizophrenia sibling study where they traveled to the agency's Bethesda, Maryland, campus for days of psychological tests and MRIs. Research on donor brains has helped scientists understand the genetic risk for schizophrenia, shown distinct scarring patterns on the brains of servicemembers who suffered blast injuries and helped identify cells that contribute to developing Down syndrome. Through the NIH's NeuroBioBank, researchers around the world can search an inventory of thousands of brains across the six repositories, refine their search by diagnosis, age, race, gender and brain region, then order brain tissue by volume, weight or number of brain sections. The NIH manages researcher requests, while the repositories collect and prepare the donor brains, fulfill orders and mail out tissue. All scientists pay is shipping. Without the NIH program, brain donor research would be prohibitively expensive, said Blanchard. A single piece of brain tissue could cost $250 through a commercial lab, he explained, and researchers need to purchase enough samples to produce statistically significant results — plus buy control group samples. Without the federally funded network saving them millions of dollars a year, researching human tissue might be too expensive for some scientists. The loss of the brains at Maryland and Mount Sinai could have consequences for research, he added, pointing to the brains of Parkinson's patients: 'Everybody wants to study the same small region of the brain, the substantia nigra,' Blanchard said, adding, 'Even though we have the whole brain, for the Parkinson's research community, they get exhausted quickly.' When Mojaverian contacted the director of the NIH's Human Brain Collection Core by email, he offered his condolences and the Maryland brain bank's phone number. He added a note in his reply, stressing the importance of James' donation. 'For UMD: the decedent was extensively studied at NIH as a participant with schizophrenia. It would be important to acquire this brain if at all possible.' Later that day, Mojaverian approached Maryland about making the donation, and was told it wouldn't be possible. Maryland's donor portal was clear about the reason why: 'Due to the uncertainty of federal funds UMBTB is anticipating a funding gap, that will impact our ability to collect donations. We cannot anticipate how long this funding gap will be.' By the time Maryland learned of its contract extension 16 days later, the window to accept James' brain had passed. Mojaverian, who said she's had a good experience with NIH researchers and doctors over the decades, blamed the Trump administration for her loss. 'This is the contribution that my brother, who had so much potential in this world and was never able to achieve it because of this severe and persistent mental illness — that he could be making this major contribution to science and somebody else would benefit from it,' she said. Members of Congress, including Republicans, have also complained about the administration's approach to cost-cutting. 'Stability is a key aspect of the American formula because it allows scientists to focus their work knowing that they will have the support they need to pursue and test their ideas from start to finish,' Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said during an Appropriations Committee hearing last month. Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) put it more directly. 'Trump is committing deliberate sabotage at NIH and creating indefensible uncertainty that is making it impossible for researchers to do their jobs,' Murray told POLITICO. The ambiguity and eleventh-hour funding decisions at the brain banks are indicative of a larger phenomenon the NIH-funded research ecosystem is grappling with as Trump reconsiders its work. Another program that suffered funding whiplash was the Women's Health Initiative, an ongoing long-term national women's health study backed by an NIH institute. On April 21, initiative investigators reported that HHS was terminating the program's regional center contracts. A few days later, following widespread news coverage, an HHS spokesperson told POLITICO the funding was being restored. It wasn't until May 5 that contractors received official confirmation. Without timely communication, investigators were left to wonder whether HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s public comments calling the centers' work 'mission critical for women's health' and the cuts 'fake news' meant that HHS would maintain current funding levels, impose some funding reductions or whether nothing had changed and the cuts were still coming. HHS said that government procedures and bureaucratic processes held up officially notifying the group of restored funding. While renewing and restoring research funding have run up against the red tape of government processes and procedures, cuts have come more swiftly, with few signs that bureaucracy is holding them up. Regardless of the cause of the notification delay, the uncertainty had a chilling effect. Investigators, especially early career researchers, were reluctant to pitch new projects to the Women's Health Initiative. Staff worried about losing their jobs. Managers wondered how they'd quickly wind down the 32-year-old project, notify the 42,000 participants and destroy or negotiate transfer of 4 million vials of frozen biospecimens. Meanwhile, the administration's decision to extend the brain bank contracts for six months doesn't end the banks' uncertainty. While Blanchard said he's optimistic in the wake of the renewal, if a month or two passes without word of the next review or funding meeting, his anxiety will return. While the October contract renewal should be for five years, he's concerned that his funding level could be cut, likely causing him to reduce donations once again or cut staff. NIH program officers told Mount Sinai's Haroutunian that maintaining the program's resources is an agency priority and that they expect to be able to renew the funding in October, he said. 'But that's guesswork on everybody's part,' he added.
