I have to waste some mod points to give the reasons. The legislation bans consideration of research where all data is not publicly available without regard for which data is available - like public health studies with anonymized data [ucsusa.org].
This bill would make it impossible for the EPA to use many health studies, since they often contain private patient information that canâ(TM)t and shouldnâ(TM)t be revealed. Studies based on confidential business information would also be off-limits. Studies of human exposures to toxics over time and from a variety of locations likely cannot be reproduced. Neither can meta-analyses, looking at the results of hundreds of scientific studies to assess their conclusions. Such studies provide critical scientific evidence in many fields of research. This legislation wasnâ(TM)t designed to promote good scienceâ"it was crafted to prevent public health and environmental laws from being enforced.
So, you've got one guy on a political-agenda-driven website, who is not a lawyer, who says *in his opinion*, that's what the bill would do.
What specific parts/language of/in the bill forbids anonymized personal, individual data to be used in otherwise open and reproducible studies?
If the bill does contain such wording.language, if it were altered so that such pragmatic and practical concerns are handled, would you then support it?
Or is this just a vector of attack on a bill which you do not support the main intent (eliminating regulation-creation within Federal agencies/Depts with force of law based on secret studies/data) of?