Latest news with #ScienceAdvisoryBoard
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Job Satisfaction Under Pressure: Survey of 528 Life Science Professionals Reveals Impact of Budget Cuts, Workload Increases, and Career Uncertainty
ARLINGTON, Va., June 6, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- BioInformatics, a Science and Medicine Group company, has released the latest edition of its free monthly Beyond the Bench report, highlighting the state of job satisfaction among scientists and life science professionals across academic and industry settings. Based on a survey of 528 life science professionals, fielded March 21–25, 2025, the survey results reveal growing concerns about job security, career prospects, and the widening effects of budgetary constraints. Key Survey Findings: While 72% of professionals report being somewhat or very satisfied in their roles, 1 in 3 have experienced a decline in job security over the past year. 71% say budget constraints have negatively impacted their job security. Common cost-saving strategies include hiring freezes (42%), reduced research funding (44%), and downsizing (29%). A majority reported increased workloads tied to financial limitations—with understaffed teams taking on more responsibility without added support. "The data show that job satisfaction is being tested by economic and institutional pressures," said Richa Singh, VP Market Insights, at BioInformatics. "Professionals are feeling the weight of underfunding and uncertainty, which not only affects morale but puts retention and long-term innovation at risk." About the ReportBeyond the Bench: Job Satisfaction is part of a free monthly intelligence series powered by BioInformatics. Drawing on the Science Advisory Board—BioInformatics proprietary network of over 55,000 highly qualified life science and diagnostic professionals—these reports deliver timely, evidence-based insights on emerging workforce trends, customer priorities, and strategic shifts across the life science and analytical instrumentation industries. Why It MattersThis edition offers a pulse check on the life science workforce—equipping commercial and HR leaders with real-time insights into employee satisfaction, concerns, and motivations. Companies can use this information to: Benchmark internal job satisfaction and turnover risk Adjust messaging and engagement strategies for academic and industry customers Build a stronger employer brand by responding to workforce sentiment Inform Custom Market Research that further tailors strategy to their audiences Access & Get Involved Download the free Beyond the Bench: Job Satisfaction report Subscribe to Beyond the Bench and get free monthly insights delivered directly to your inbox. Become a member of the Science Advisory Board - If you qualify, you'll be invited to participate in surveys, earn rewards, and help shape the future of life science research! About BioInformatics BioInformatics, part of the Science and Medicine Group, is the leading research and advisory firm serving the life science and diagnostic industries. Our expertise includes primary quantitative and qualitative research in addition to secondary research and published reports. We own a proprietary, international community of more than 55,000 scientists and biomedical researchers to provide insights that grow businesses and move markets. Our multi-disciplinary team is comprised of industry veterans, market research experts, and survey statisticians. Website: View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE BioInformatics Inc. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal laws don't ban rollbacks of environmental protection, but they don't make it easy
President Donald Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin have announced their intent to reconsider dozens of current regulations in an effort to loosen standards originally imposed to protect the environment and public health. But it's not as simple as Trump and Zeldin just saying so. A few of the changes, such as reconstituting the membership of EPA's Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee or using enforcement discretion to avoid targeting favored industries, are administrative measures that can be changed with the stroke of a pen. But many, including carbon emissions standards for power plants and motor vehicles, wastewater limits for refineries and chemical plants, or air pollution standards, can only be revised in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law first passed in 1946. That process includes public notice of the proposed changes, an opportunity for the public to comment on those proposals, and a review of those comments by the responsible federal agency. There are some explicit restrictions that prevent loosening of existing environmental standards for clean air and water. In general, though, if the administration has evidence to support its claims that the protections should be reduced and the administration follows the process required by law, it is possible to loosen the restrictions. But as a former longtime senior leader at EPA and student of environmental policy, I know that process is not easy – and it's not meant to be. As examples of how the process of changing the rules and standards works, let's look at the provisions of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Similar provisions exist in the nation's wide range of environmental protection laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and others. The Clean Air Act sets uniform national standards for air quality, and it created the rules by which states create plans to meet those standards. One section of the law, Part C of Title I of the act, is titled 'Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality.' Its provisions are meant to prevent states that meet the national standards from allowing air quality to get worse in the future. Its basic effect is to require that new sources of pollution, or existing ones that make significant equipment changes, use the best available technology that meets or exceeds the minimum federal standards for pollution control. Additional protections apply to sensitive areas like national parks. For areas that did not yet meet the standards, a set of amendments passed in 1990 included one that prevented air quality from getting worse. That provision, known as the 'anti-backsliding rule,' says that no state whose air did not meet the standards before Nov. 15, 1990, can change its plan 'unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions.' And once a state's air quality improves to meet the standards, the state must follow maintenance plans to make sure the air quality doesn't get worse. Under the Clean Water Act, states set water quality standards to protect drinking water and water for recreation, as well as to protect wildlife. The Environmental Protection Agency has interpreted key sections of the law to require that states ensure that whatever companies discharge into the water from factories or other operations don't degrade downstream water quality – even if the existing conditions are better than the minimum standards. Known as 'anti-degradation provisions,' these rules mean water that is currently far cleaner than the standards require can't legally be made more dirty, even if only a little bit. The Clean Water Act also contains anti-backsliding provisions that prevent new discharge permits from allowing more pollution than previous permits did. Many federal standards can be weakened, so long as the EPA follows the Administrative Procedure Act's process. Since the 1970 passage of the Clean Air Act, the national air quality standards have not been weakened. Technology standards for air and water pollution controls have tightened over time because of advances that improved performance while reducing costs. To change the rules under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must first provide evidence that the existing rules are no longer appropriate. Without that evidence, any changes may be overturned by the courts as not founded in facts – in legal terms, 'arbitrary and capricious.' The first Trump administration's efforts to change the rules failed in many court cases on this basis. This review process is also required of the EPA's intended effort to revoke the so-called 'endangerment finding,' which establishes the agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. If successful, that revocation would undo the legal grounds for carbon dioxide and methane pollution standards for motor vehicles, electric utilities, oil and gas production, and large industrial sources. Such an effort will certainly end up in court. The endangerment finding began with a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required the EPA to assess whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare. In 2009, the agency found that they did. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that finding, and the Supreme Court declined to reconsider the case. The Trump administration's stated plans for amending water pollution rules illustrate that rolling back protections can also mean undoing efforts to strengthen restrictions, if those efforts did not get finalized before 2025. For instance, in June 2024, the Biden administration's EPA notified the public that it intended to tighten restrictions on manufacturing plants' discharges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, into surface water or public sewage-treatment systems. Those are a large category of human-made chemicals, used to make products resistant to water, stains and heat, which can be harmful to human health at some levels. These chemicals don't break down easily and therefore are often called 'forever chemicals.' But the changes were never finalized, and on the second day of Trump's second term, the new administration announced that the proposal had been withdrawn. Rollbacks can also mean extending compliance deadlines for current standards. For example, the EPA has announced that it will review discharge rules for power plants. Even if the rules themselves don't change, giving power plants more time to comply with the rules can increase pollution. In general, U.S. environmental laws do not prevent the EPA from weakening protection standards. But merely announcing the agency's intention to do something doesn't make it so. In a recent executive order, Trump claimed he could take an action without public notice and comment 'because I am ordering the repeal.' But federal law specifies that the process of change requires explicit descriptions of scientific and technical reasons and evidence that justify any proposed actions, and a notice-and-comment process that involves the public. In the meantime, the existing standards remain in place, enforceable by citizen lawsuits even if the federal government decides not to enforce them. Agencies require technical and legal expertise to craft rules that can survive inevitable challenges in the courts. Many of those experts have been fired or laid off by the Trump administration, making the job of changing regulations more difficult. 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: Stan Meiburg, Wake Forest University Read more: 'Administrative law' sounds dry but likely will be key to success or failure of Trump's plans for government reform How the EPA administrator protects public health, air, water and the environment Environmental protection laws still apply even under Trump's national energy emergency − here's why Stan Meiburg is a volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network, a non-partisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. He is also a 39 year alumnus of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He is a professional colleague with Sid Shapiro, whose Conversation article is cited in this piece.
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
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.
