The Silence Surrounding Water: The Intersection of Politics and Science — Shock Over Reports of EPA Water Bureau's Directive to "Halt" Papers

Introduction: What Happened (September 20, Eastern US Time)

The Washington Post reported on September 20 (local time) that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had instructed some scientists in its Office of Water to effectively "pause" the publication of their papers. Except for papers that have completed peer review and are in the proof stage, they will be subject to a new review process. This information was revealed anonymously by multiple staff members, who stated that the decision was made by politically appointed executives. Meanwhile, EPA spokesperson Bridgette Hersch strongly denied the claims, stating, **"This is misinformation," "EPA science is advancing more than ever."**The Washington Post

An article summarizing this report by Engadget also spread, reaching tech-savvy readers.Engadget

Why the "Office of Water"? The Impact

The Office of Water is responsible for research directly related to PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), microplastics, arsenic in groundwater, and lead testing methods in drinking water, which are directly connected to water quality and public health. Delays in publishing results here could potentially directly affect the response of water utilities, updates to state standards, and risk notifications to the public. In fact, recent research by this office and related departments has covered PFAS, lead testing, and arsenic contamination.The Washington Post

Background: Reorganization and Downsizing of EPA's Research Functions

This incident is being discussed in the context of a major reorganization of the research system. Since July, the EPA has been reported to have abolished and reorganized its long-standing core Office of Research and Development (ORD), with many scientists being reassigned or reduced. Multiple primary reports from PBS, ABC, and The Washington Post have conveyed that this affects hundreds to a thousand scientific positions.PBS

Such reorganization has raised repeated concerns since spring, as noted by Reuters and others, about weakening the **independence of research and the "scientific foundation" that underpins policy decisions**.Reuters

Official View vs. On-the-Ground Testimonies: Discrepancies

• On-the-Ground Testimonies: Staff at the Office of Water reported being informed that "papers not yet at the proof stage will be subject to new review," describing it as an unprecedented measure. They also noted the lack of a unified explanation text to provide when queried by academic journals about the reasons.The Washington Post

• EPA's Denial: Spokesperson Hersch countered, stating, "There is no fact that politically appointed executives ordered the review," and emphasized that the mission based on "gold standard science" continues.The Washington Post

This discrepancy has been repeatedly highlighted in secondary reports via The Independent and Yahoo, taking on the aspect of an information battle over fact recognition.The Independent

What Is Being Halted: Anticipated Practical Impacts

1. Papers from Peer Review to Pre-Final Proof: Manuscripts before proof are subject to new review, risking publication delays. Immediate knowledge implementation, such as PFAS and lead testing methods in drinking water, could be postponed.The Washington Post

2. Relationship with Academic Journals: Without an explanation to the editorial board, it could affect trust as a delay due to institutional reasons.The Washington Post

3. Efficiency of Research Funding: Anonymous staff pointed out the possibility that "research worth millions of dollars may be halted," potentially affecting cost-effectiveness and evaluations by funding agencies.The Washington Post
   
   

Reactions on Social Media: Spread of Distrust and Crisis Awareness

Since September 20, the URL of the Washington Post article has been shared by journalists, researchers, and NPO personnel on X (formerly Twitter). The official WaPo post was viewed by approximately 140,000 to 160,000 people (as of the morning of September 21, Japan time). Journalists and researchers expressed concerns and sarcasm such as "Politics overshadowing science" and "Halting research delays the visualization of health risks," making these issues visible.X (formerly Twitter)

• Example: Veteran environmental journalists and science writers introduced the link in succession, suggesting concerns over policy intervention suspicions.X (formerly Twitter)

• Example: Scholars in public policy and risk research also shared the article with comments like "If politics wins over science, public health loses."X (formerly Twitter)

• Example: General users reacted with anger, saying things like "Is this a call to stop telling the truth?.".X (formerly Twitter)

※Individual posts on social media are highly immediate and subjective. It is necessary to read both the original report (WaPo) and the official EPA comments to evaluate emotional reactions separately from factual relationships.The Washington Post

Discussion Points: Scientific Independence and "Quality of Governance"

1. Scientific Independence: Research by administrative agencies serves as the basis for regulatory design. If politically appointed executives intervene in the timing of publication or external reviews of content, it raises suspicions of "delays in inconvenient findings," undermining the legitimacy of policies. Although the EPA denies this, discrepancies with on-the-ground testimonies create an impression of a lack of accountability.The Washington Post

2. Institutional Context: The simultaneous occurrence of the abolition and downsizing of the ORD, a "weakening of the parent body," and the suspicion of publication suspension is significant. If the continuous supply network of knowledge is weakened, the frequency of evidence updates for regulations decreases, delaying actions by markets and municipalities.The Washington Post PBS

3. Transparency: If the "new review process" aims to ensure the quality of research, the criteria, jurisdiction, and decision deadlines should be disclosed. Otherwise, suspicions of arbitrariness will not disappear. At present, details are unknown.The Washington Post
   
   

Future Checkpoints

• Official Guidance from the EPA (requirements, scope, deadlines, and appeal processes for the new review).The Washington Post

• Response from Academic Journals (editorial statements, handling of delay reasons, alternative means of publication).The Washington Post

• Actions by Congress, Oversight