Environmental engineer. Mom. Cyclist. Public Transit Enthusiast. @UCSUSA. @500WomenSci. Tweets my own. She/her. @WHOSTP account: @GGoldman46
Jan 30, 2021 • 8 tweets • 6 min read
Great new story on the huge gaps in federal science capacity that the Biden Team inherits, and what that means for the nation's ability to protect people from environmental threats. Here's some key points from the story and @UCSUSA analysis...
By this, @EPAAWheeler means the rule forces EPA to give "less consideration" to studies using any dose-response data that isn't public. This could include studies relying on personally identifiable health data, older studies, and other key studies. (2/7)
The administration's rule to restrict EPA science--which was unilaterally opposed by the scientific community in nearly a million comments--will be finalized. Some thoughts in a THREAD... washingtonpost.com/climate-enviro…
They claim the final rule has been "narrowed" because it is focused on dose-response data. But substantial parts of EPA work concerns this fundamental question: At what level is this pollutant harmful to public health and the environment?" Thus, this is anything but narrow.
Dec 29, 2020 • 10 tweets • 6 min read
Hard to make sense of this strange year but here's some things I did and wrote, along with some thoughts for the coming year.
In January I testified to Congress on the importance of public access to information on oil and gas drilling on public lands--an issue that I hope will be prioritized in the coming years. blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldm…
Sep 16, 2020 • 6 tweets • 3 min read
This is going viral because of the comic relief. But I want to be clear that parents are being put in an impossible situation now and it will derail entire careers, especially for moms. Some thoughts... #SciMomJourneys
Moms in science are used to juggling parent and work duties. Here's a time I gave public comment at the @EPA with my one-month-old while I was on maternity leave. blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldm…
May 19, 2020 • 7 tweets • 3 min read
New @UCSUSA analysis: The public is hearing less from CDC scientists and more from the White House than in past infectious disease outbreaks. And it is costing the public. Here's some key finding from @anita_desikan's and my new work. ucsusa.org/resources/let-…
First, you might expect more communication for bigger outbreaks, but that hasn't been the case. Even though COVID cases have far outnumbered past epidemics, we've only heard as much from the CDC as we did on SARS (which only had 8 US cases)
Apr 23, 2020 • 17 tweets • 6 min read
We couldn't predict #COVID19, but CDC scientists did predict a pandemic and our lack of preparedness. My new @PLOSONE paper with @UCSJacob has important findings that inform decisionmakers actions now. Here's some key points from our paper released today. journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…
In 2018, we worked with @IowaStateU to ask 63,000 scientists at the @CDCgov, @USEPA, @Interior and other federal science agencies about scientific integrity. We learned a lot that could have predicted the many science policy challenges the nation now faces.
Mar 4, 2020 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
They tried to bury the EPA science rule by releasing it late Super Tuesday. Little did they know, I am a science policy nerd willing to dive deep into their lengthy nonsensical proposals in short order. My take on EPA's new "transparency" rule: blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldm…
The supplemental proposal makes the rule even worse. The original draft was vague. It is now crystal clear that this rule will devastate the EPA's ability to conduct and use science on everything from air pollution protections, to water quality standards, to pesticide regulation.
Sep 26, 2019 • 11 tweets • 3 min read
This is big. It's never been done before. And I'm excited to share it with you today. We are pushing back on the sidelining of air pollution science at the EPA in a monumental way. A THREAD theguardian.com/environment/20…
On October 10-11, we will be bringing together the very group of science advisers that EPA leaders disbanded a year ago--to the day--to ensure independent science advice informs the particulate pollution standard. blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldm…
Sep 11, 2019 • 13 tweets • 5 min read
If you find yourself newly interested in NOAA, scientific integrity, and how decisionmakers are held accountable for following the science-based missions of agencies. Here's some background. There are reasons #sharpiegate is playing out this way.
Before 2011, most federal agencies didn't have much in terms of scientific integrity protections for staff. The Bush II administration laid bare this glaring vulnerability, with abuses of science across the government from ideological and financial forces ucsusa.org/our-work/cente…
Sep 7, 2019 • 10 tweets • 7 min read
This might look like another layer of #SharpieGate, but NOAA leadership trading scientific integrity for political appeasement is a much bigger deal and one that threatens the safety of the nation.
Employees of @NWS work around the clock, in every corner of the country, to keep the nation safe from hurricanes, tornadoes, heatwaves, and floodwaters. Communication with the public is a crucial part of that work.
The White House just issued an executive order directing the elimination of one-third of federal advisory committees. This severely cuts scientific and public input from government decisions. whitehouse.gov/presidential-a…
The federal advisory committee system allows external advice to inform government decisionmaking across federal agencies. Some are stakeholder committees, some are science advisory committees.
This is a remarkable story. Johnson & Johnson knew for decades asbestos was in its baby powder. They not only kept this a secret but actively paid for bogus science to stave off regulations that might have protected people. reut.rs/2A1targ
This is such an important question that we shouldn't gloss over. Why ARE companies that knowingly cause harm able to stay in business for years, or decades after? Let's dive in...
