Environmental Protection Employees are still in the dark because the agency destroys the Office of Scientific Research

Several scientists of the Environmental Protection Agency emphasized that the current structure, which allows research to be independent of policymaking that occurs in other parts of the agency, is very important for producing quality labor. One told Weir that they work in a scientific role in an Environmental Protection Agency’s policy office called the first Trump administration. There, they felt that their task was to “try to support science to support a political decision previously made.” According to them, the structure in the ORD provides a layer of insulation between decision makers and the scientific process.

The ORD has been heavily identified in the 2025 project guidelines for the leadership document, a policy plan that has closely predicted the Trump administration’s actions. The branch describes the branch as “caution, bloating, unstable, closed, resulting -centric, hostile to public and legislative entrances and tends to pursue political goals, not purely scientific.” However, the plan did not suggest that it would be destroyed with the organization. But in March, documents provided by the IAEA leadership to the White House offers an ORD solving proposal and lead to a strong Democratic reaction in Congress.

In early May, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it will reinforce its structure, which the director of Lee Zeldin wrote in a Newsweek that “integrating direct scientific staff into our program offices would improve the agency.” The agency has said that the new office creates environmental sciences and environmental solutions (OAS), which is subjected to the manager’s office.

The scientist who previously worked in a politics office told Wired: “Putting many scientific work in the politics office means” we want to see a science that has been influenced by politics.

Following the May announcement of May, ORD staff were encouraged to apply for jobs in other parts of the agency. Several wire workers say job posts for these new positions were naked bones, with little explanation of what actually happens. A wired job submission is not simply needed as “interdisciplinary scientific and engineering situations” without information on the subject, team or scientific expertise.

The efforts of the re -organizing the Environmental Protection Agency were temporarily stopped by lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court stopped an initial ruling that prevented more mass declines in 17 federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.

There was a clear point in Monday’s call: ORD leadership told employees that all laboratories are kept open, part of the news that, unlike some previous reports. However, workers say that science in EPA is increasingly difficult. According to a spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency, more than 325 ORD workers – around one -fifth of the ORD – have volunteered since the beginning of the year. A scientist told Wired that while they usually helped a small team help their field, they were left to do everything alone, including “washing dishes and labeling bottles”. According to them, the processes of new hand -made financial approval have also led to the chemicals that they have ordered to delay for months and expensive equipment without any repair.

Since his tenure, Zeldin has made it clear that he intends to relax environmental regulations, especially cases that affect business. Last week, he authored Fox News how the Agency basically approves the approval of clean air for power plants and data centers to “build the United States to the Capital of Artificial Intelligence.” Lord’s scientists are afraid that the dissolution of their office will only make it easier for this pro -business mission.

One scientist says: “If you want to get back the air quality regulations, and we know that at this stage, ozone contamination can cause premature mortality and chronic effects. If you turn the rules back, you want to see additional deaths and diseases.” “My guess is that [EPA leadership] I don’t want to know how bad it will be. “