“Former EPA Official Sounds Alarm on Potential Dismantling of Office of Research and Development”
The potential dismantling of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) has raised concerns among former EPA officials and environmental advocates. Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, who served as the principal deputy assistant administrator for ORD until her retirement in 2021, expressed alarm at the proposal to eliminate the office and potentially fire up to 1,155 scientists, including chemists, toxicologists, and biologists.
The plan, which was reviewed by Democrats on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and reported by The New York Times, could result in the closure of multiple research facilities across the country. The EPA spokesperson stated that no decisions have been made yet, but the agency is considering organizational improvements to enhance its ability to deliver clean air, water, and land for all Americans.
Orme-Zavaleta emphasized the critical role that ORD plays in providing the scientific foundation for EPA’s regulatory work. The office’s scientists are responsible for detecting pollutants, evaluating toxic risks, developing technologies to remove environmental contaminants, and ensuring that regulations are based on the best available science. She warned that gutting ORD would not only impact immediate regulatory work but also hinder the agency’s ability to address emerging threats like PFAS chemicals and nanoplastics.
The potential loss of scientific capacity within ORD could have far-reaching consequences for EPA’s ability to protect public health and the environment. Orme-Zavaleta, who sits on the board of directors of the Environmental Protection Network, described the proposed reorganization as “an affront to science” and “an attack on the very lifeblood of the agency.” She expressed concerns that this move could stall scientific progress for decades and weaken America’s core environmental protections.
In an interview, Orme-Zavaleta highlighted the importance of ORD’s role in conducting research, responding to emergencies, and anticipating future environmental challenges. She emphasized that rebuilding the scientific capacity of the office, if it is gutted, would take decades and leave a significant gap in the agency’s ability to address environmental threats.
The potential elimination of ORD has sparked calls for action from Congress and the public. Orme-Zavaleta urged lawmakers to assert their role in overseeing EPA’s operations and ensure that the agency’s scientific integrity is preserved. She emphasized the need for public awareness and support to push back against the proposed reorganization and protect EPA’s ability to fulfill its statutory obligations.
As the debate over the future of ORD continues, the implications of this potential decision on EPA’s regulatory and enforcement work, as well as its ability to address emerging environmental challenges, remain a topic of concern for environmental advocates and former EPA officials. The fate of ORD and its critical role in safeguarding public health and the environment hangs in the balance, awaiting further developments and potential interventions to preserve its scientific mission.