The 2025 WV Legislature is considering a bill deceptively named the “Sound Science in Regulations Act” (HB2493; SB599), but in fact, this bill undercuts science to protect public health and the environment. Here’s why:

1. It prevents state agencies from using public health research because it creates an impossible standard for public health research to be used in regulations.
2. It prohibits state agencies from using the best available science because it bans research published in top-tier scientific journals. This bill amounts to scientific censorship!
3. The bill is overly broad and would impact nearly every aspect of state agency regulations, including all advisories, rules, and standards that protect public health and the environment.

Our Letter:

RE: Scientist concerns on the “Sound Science in Regulations Act” (HB2493, SB599) 

Dear Lawmakers: 

As scientific professionals, we write to express our concerns regarding the “Sound Science in Regulations Act” (HB2493, SB599). 

We agree that regulations and health advisories should always be based on sound science, but the proposed legislation will achieve the opposite result. The legislation would likely have significant unintended consequences and would stop safety regulations and health advisories that protect children and adults across West Virginia. 

First, the legislation is overly broad in scope. It would affect rulemaking and health advisories from the WV Department of Health, the WV Department of Environmental Protection, the WV Department of Agriculture, the WV Division of Natural Resources, the WV Division of Forestry, and potentially all state boards, agencies, and commissions. It would fundamentally restrict the state government’s ability to regulate pesticide use, pharmaceuticals, water and air pollution, forest management, fisheries and water resource management, and hazardous waste cleanup. 

Second, a central problem with the bill is that it would establish an insurmountable burden of proof for agency rulemaking that is out of step with scientific practice. Section (a)(2) of the bill requires that agencies can only regulate or warn against chemicals that are “causally linked” to “manifest bodily harm in humans”. This is very problematic because scientists cannot experiment on humans to demonstrate toxicity as this bill would require. 

This would force agencies to ignore the best available science in epidemiology and public health that relies on statistical methods, animal surrogates, and other widely accepted methods. For example, there are currently no placebo-controlled double-blind studies showing that lead exposure “causes” developmental neurotoxicity or that smoking “causes” cancer, yet those substances are worthy of health advisories and regulation.  

Therefore this bill would undercut the ability of state agencies to protect West Virginians from toxic pollution. 

Third, the bill would prohibit agencies from using the best available scientific research when issuing health advisories, safety regulations, and environmental standards regarding chemicals and mixtures of chemicals. Specifically, the bill prohibits agencies from using scientific journals that charge publication or submission fees (see Section (b)(2)(C)). Yet many reputable peer-reviewed journals charge publication fees because journals have operational expenses that must be funded. We believe that treating publication fees as a barometer for scientific reliability is not good policy and will have significant unintended consequences. 

Examples of scientific journals that would likely be excluded by this bill include Nature, Science, The Lancet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science Advances, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, BMC Medicine, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, and many others. 

The bill also would restrict the use of internal technical reports developed by state agencies. For instance, the bill would prevent agencies from relying upon site-specific studies or modeling results that typically never are published in scientific journals but nonetheless undergo intensive vetting and peer review. Such unpublished “grey literature” reports can provide a sound basis for agency decisions because they are developed by professionals within state agencies who have local knowledge of the problems and solutions. Moreover, such work is largely funded by West Virginia taxpayers and, therefore, should not be ignored or undercut as the bill proposes. 

For these reasons, we encourage you to reject this legislation. Thank you for considering our concerns. 

Sincerely, 

Nathaniel P. Hitt, PhD 
Senior Scientist
WV Rivers Coalition
E: NHitt@wvrivers.org