←back to thread

EPA says it will eliminate its scientific research arm

(www.nytimes.com)
260 points anigbrowl | 2 comments | 18 Jul 25 23:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.516s | source
Show context
globalview ◴[19 Jul 25 00:46 UTC] No.44611487[source]▶
A lot of comments are rightfully pointing out the destructive nature of this move. But looking at it from another angle, is it possible this is a symptom of a deeper problem?

What if a significant portion of the electorate no longer believes institutions like the EPA are neutral arbiters of science, but instead see them as political actors pushing an agenda? If that belief is widespread, is an action like this seen not as 'destruction', but as 'dismantling a biased system', even if it seems counterproductive to the rest of us?

replies(7): >>44611499 #>>44611551 #>>44611557 #>>44611672 #>>44612027 #>>44613535 #>>44614601 #
consumer451 ◴[19 Jul 25 02:26 UTC] No.44612027[source]▶
> What if a significant portion of the electorate no longer believes institutions like the EPA are neutral arbiters of science, but instead see them as political actors pushing an agenda?

This is clearly the case. The next question is, how did this happen? Did these people come to this conclusion based on their own diligent research, or were they led to this opinion by supremely funded vested interests that influence every branch of our society?

replies(4): >>44612943 #>>44613985 #>>44614422 #>>44617064 #
thuridas ◴[19 Jul 25 09:41 UTC] No.44613985[source]▶
Republicans not always do what the electorate wants.

Abortion, gun control and releasing the Epstain list are have popular support but the are against it.

Sometimes a small influential group can push for an agenda. That are more organized and have more money

replies(2): >>44614234 #>>44615539 #
sokoloff ◴[19 Jul 25 10:27 UTC] No.44614234[source]▶
Democrats also do not always do what the electorate wants.

How many times did they have executive and both houses since Roe v Wade without passing law to enshrine the right to abortion?

Surely they could have released the Epstein list as well.

We can argue which party is “worse than the other” for sure, but both serve themselves and neither is a bright shining star of serving the actual people IMO.

replies(1): >>44617763 #
1. amanaplanacanal ◴[19 Jul 25 17:59 UTC] No.44617763[source]▶
Why would they need to enshrine the right to abortion in law when the supreme Court said it was guaranteed in the Constitution? They probably thought they had more pressing matters to work on. I didn't hear any call to pass a right to abortion law. Maybe there was some grovel I missed?

And from what I can see, the Democrats didn't care much about the Epstein list because there wasn't much evidence there even was a list. The current administration ran on the idea that there was a list and the Democrats were covering it up.

replies(1): >>44617828 #
2. sokoloff ◴[19 Jul 25 18:06 UTC] No.44617828[source]▶
Surely you got many of the DNC fundraisers that breathlessly urged donors to give to the DNC to protect the right for a woman to choose? Or remember the turn out the vote campaigns to protect abortion rights?

It appears to me that the possibility that Roe v Wade would be overturned was more valuable to the DNC as a threat than cementing the issue by law-making was.