The bill would also elevate the stature of EPA scientists, encouraging personnel retention and continuity in the agency. With new scientific leadership, the EPA could examine its basic and applied research agendas to better align them with the regulatory goals of the agency. Rick Blum of the non-profit organization OMB Watch, commends the goals of H.R. 64 but does not think it goes far enough to define the role of science at EPA decision making. He thinks the bill could be improved in several ways. First, it should be more explicit in integrating the information management aspects of the scientific process into the bill.
Science is only a part of the regulatory decision making process.
The EPA cannot always wait for scientific certainty when human health is at stake. Congress should also help the EPA fill scientific knowledge gaps by increasing the agencies control over environmental research across agency boundaries. Ehlers asked the witnesses to comment on some of the criticisms the bill has received including that if H.R. 64 is passed this Congress the EPA would have trouble implementing the proposed changes while getting adjusted to the new administration. Another criticism has been that if science is given priority at the EPA the constant uncertainties stemming from the scientific process will stagnate regulatory decision making and undermine the agency goal of protecting human and environmental health. To the first point the witnesses agreed that it may actually be easier to implement a big change at the outset of a new administration.