Trump's controversial EPA nominee faces sharp questions over ties to chemical industry
WASHINGTON — A University of Cincinnati professor nominated by President Trump for a top job at the Environmental Protection Agency is coming under intense scrutiny for his financial ties to the chemical industry.
Michael Dourson is a toxicologist who specializes in environmental risk assessment, now tapped to lead the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
Much of Dourson’s research has been funded by the very industries he would regulate if he wins confirmation. Among the interest groups financing his work: the American Petroleum Institute, the American Chemistry Council and the American Cleaning Institute.
Critics fear Dourson would use the EPA post to weaken safety standards for a raft of chemicals and pesticides, potentially setting dangerous levels for contaminants allowed in everything from cosmetics to paint thinner to drinking water.
“We think he would be an atrocious choice for this position,” said Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, a Washington-based advocacy group. “Having someone of his ilk, who is so tilted in one direction, would just be really a problem.”
Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide
Dourson, who earned his Ph.D. from UC in 1980, referred questions about his work to the EPA. An EPA spokeswoman did not respond to emailed questions. But in announcing his nomination in July, the agency touted him as a renowned toxicology expert with unparalleled credentials and included endorsements from several other experts in his field.
“Dr. Michael Dourson has been a foundational thinker in the protection of human health from chemical exposure,” Oliver Kroner, who works in the city of Cincinnati’s Office of Environment and Sustainability, said in a statement included in the EPA’s release. “He has been a tireless champion of science, and the role of science to help quantify risk and uncertainty.”
Dourson has worked at the EPA before, serving in various positions from 1980 until 1994. He has been affiliated with the University of Cincinnati since 2015, and he’s now a faculty member at the school’s Risk Science Center, which says its mission is to work at the “intersection of science and health protection.”
“Chemicals are an important part of our daily lives,” the center’s website states. “Some chemicals are essential to a healthy life, but exposure to chemicals may also present health risks. We study the way our bodies interact with the chemicals around us to determine the nature and extent of health risks.”
Read more:
Stalled on health care, President Trump quietly scores wins on energy agenda
Does President Trump believe in climate change? White House, EPA won't say
Dourson, who also writes “science Bible books,” could receive a confirmation hearing as soon as next week, and it’s sure to be contentious.
In preparation for the grilling, Sen. Tom Carper, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, has asked Dourson for a raft of documents related to his research and the industries that have funded it.
In an Aug. 4 letter, the Delaware senator asked Dourson to detail any work he’s done on behalf of chemical companies entangled in lawsuits, to specify any corporate work that might force him to recuse himself from EPA decisions, and to itemize the funding sources for his nonprofit research organization, among other queries.
Carper noted that Dourson’s nomination comes at a pivotal moment — as the EPA implements a new chemical safety law, passed last year with bipartisan support. Under that law, the office Dourson is nominated to lead will evaluate the risks and set safety standards for a bevy of chemicals.
“It is imperative that we make sure EPA is up to the task of implementing those critical reforms in a credible and objective way, and giving all Americans the protection and peace of mind they deserve,” Carper said in a statement to USA TODAY. “Based on his record, I’m not convinced Dr. Dourson is the right person for this important job.”
Dourson’s role as founder and president of a Cincinnati-based nonprofit — Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment — is perhaps the most controversial item on his résumé.
Dourson started TERA in 1995, and its mission, according to the group’s website, is to “protect human health by conducting scientific research and development on risk issues in a transparent and collaborative fashion.” The group says its research is objective and it operates independently of its funders.
“We operate at the highest level of ethical and scientific standards,” the website states.
According to the most recent tax documents available, TERA’s revenue in 2014 was about $2.48 million. By TERA’s own accounting, 43% of its work that year was sponsored by industry groups seeking TERA’s scientific assessments. The remainder was government or nonprofit-funded work.
TERA says it strives for a balance between for-profit and non-profit clients. Its website lists its industry and other sponsors but does not specify donation amounts. The percentage of its industry-funded work has ranged from 18% to 62%, according to its disclosures.
But others say TERA is anything but balanced or neutral.
A 2014 investigation by the Center for Public Integrity and InsideClimate News found that TERA’s corporate ties were extensive.
“More than 50 percent of the peer-review panels TERA has organized since 1995 were for studies funded by industry groups,” the investigation found. “TERA also runs a risk-assessment database that receives financial and in-kind support from many companies and government agencies. Some of those groups have also paid TERA to peer-review studies they hope will be included in the database.”
Denison, the Environmental Defense Fund scientist, said he fears Dourson will give the chemical industry a free pass. He said Dourson has worked on behalf of companies that make or use three of the first 10 chemicals EPA is supposed to review under the 2016 law.
“In all three cases, he proposed (safety) standards that are many times less protective than the standards that other authoritative bodies have set for those same chemicals,” Denison said.
If he’s confirmed, Denison said, it will have a “very direct and very immediate” impact on public health.