Is all research created equal? Institutional credibility and technical expertise in environmental policymaking at United States EPA

This dissertation evaluates the role of private sector research institutions in the development of environmental regulations at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A regulatory agency subject to pervasive time and resource constraints, EPA typically cannot generate sufficient research on which to base regulations; therefore it often relies on external parties, including regulated industry, to supply scientific evidence. I examine three case studies of environmental decisionmaking at EPA in the 1990s: (1) the regulation of MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) as a gasoline oxygenate; (2) the creation of a drinking water health goal for chloroform; and (3) the decision to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. My research evaluates the agency's use of science according to criteria of scientific justification, balance, and efficiency. The agency's use of private sector research depends upon the agency's mode of engagement with science: (1) acquisition, the process of obtaining scientific research; (2) assessment, the critical review of available data; and (3) application, the use of scientific evidence to justify regulatory decisions. Throughout these case studies, the agency is adaptive and opportunistic in the acquisition mode in taking advantage of industry data to meet its needs. In the assessment phase, the agency selects scientific evidence that is compatible with the norms of good science as well as usable in the regulatory context. EPA frequently relies upon expert panel reviews, which often blur the distinction between scientific expert and industry stakeholder. In the application mode, the agency is most vulnerable to directives from its political principals, Congress and the White House, and to lobbying from special interest groups; EPA often responds to these political pressures by deferring action. The acquisition mode is most critical in affecting the agency's ability to integrate science in regulatory decisions. The path-dependency of the scientific research process makes it possible for private sector interests to distort the overall research agenda by excluding more broadly-framed research questions. The discrepancy between the most desirable research portfolio from the agency's perspective and the actual research conducted by private parties is a classic example of a public goods dilemma, and therefore a prime justification for agency-sponsored research.