U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, today sent a letter to Dr. Francesca Grifo, the Science Integrity Official for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), following up on a March 2014 letter requesting the research data from certain scientific studies used to justify numerous significant air regulations. Recent work conducted by the National Academy of Sciences on formaldehyde, inorganic arsenic, and endocrine disrupters demonstrate matters of scientific integrity extend well beyond EPA's Office of Air and radiation.

"As the EPA's Scientific Integrity Office, it is inexcusable for Dr. Grifo to refuse to be forthright on matters that affect all Americans, and shows a complete failure to uphold President Obama's promise of an open and transparent Administration," said Vitter. "I think we can all agree that the federal government must use legitimate scientific data, but if no one has seen it and the Scientific Integrity Officer is unresponsive, how can the EPA guarantee it's all legitimate?"

In today's letter, Vitter also requests all communications related to a 2001 study co-authored by Dr. Stan Barone entitled, "The effects of perinatal tebuconazole exposure on adult neurological, immunological, and reproductive function in rats." Dr. Barone later publicly withdrew all neurolopathological conclusions from the study, yet there is reason to believe this study may be indicative of some of the challenges with EPA's chemical research. Vitter is seeking a full accounting of what transpired after this study was published.

On March 17, 2014, Vitter sent a letter to Dr. Grifo stating concerns over the quality and possible data-related misconduct surrounding the science EPA used to justify significant and costly air regulations. Currently, Dr. Grifo has not yet responded. Click here to read more.

During the nomination process for Administrator Gina McCarthy, EPA agreed to EPW Republicans' request to start a process to release all research data from certain epidemiological studies that were the subject of follow-up studies used in the benefits analyses of numerous significant air regulations proposed by EPA. EPA has failed to fulfill the agreement. Independent examinations of what little data has been made available indicate that the data may have been corrupted, destroyed, or otherwise intentionally made unavailable for independent reanalysis.

Click here to read today's letter.