Genna Reed

Science and policy analyst, Center for Science and Democracy

Author image
Genna Reed is a science and policy analyst in the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. In her role, she researches political and corporate influences on science-informed decision making—working to inform the public about issues where science is stifled or obscured, and to ensure that federal, state, and local policies are based on rigorous, independent science. See Genna's full bio.

Subscribe to Genna's posts

Genna's Latest Posts

Monsanto’s Four Tactics for Undermining Glyphosate Science Review

Emails unsealed in a California lawsuit last week reveal that agribusiness giant Monsanto engaged in activities aimed at undermining efforts to evaluate a potential link between glyphosate—the active ingredient of the company’s popular herbicide Roundup—and cancer. The documents reveal the company’s plans to seed the scientific literature with a ghostwritten study, and its efforts to delay and prevent US government assessments of the product’s safety. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

How’s EPA’s Science Advice Process Doing? Celebrating Sunshine and Progress at the EPA

Happy sunshine week! It’s a week to celebrate one of the pillars of our democracy: access to information. This year’s sunshine week seems especially important because of the current Administration’s open hostility toward the media, which has been shining a light on the federal government’s operations day in and day out and illustrating the clear conflicts of interest of the corporate cabinet. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

Why the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act Is Bad for Science

Congress’ perennial bill, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, has again reared its ugly head. The bill seeks to change the requirements for the EPA’s advisory committee to give industry greater influence while adding extra burdens that make it harder for the committee to meet its charge of providing science advice. It would also have the side effect of dissuading scientists from serving on this advisory committee because of future restrictions to obtaining EPA funding. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

Congress Does Industry’s Bidding by Cutting Public Safeguards

The past month has not been kind to environmental and public health protections. A bevy of science-based rules are now on the chopping block thanks to the congressional sleight-of-hand called the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows a simple majority in Congress to undo provisions issued within the final six months of the previous administration.

Read more >

Photo: Jack Pearce/CC BY-SA 2.0, Flickr
Photo: Yvette Arellano/TEJAS
Photo: Tim Evanson/CC BY-SA 2.0, Flickr
Bookmark and Share

Advancing Scientific Integrity Through Federal Advisory Committees

Back in October, I provided a comment at a public meeting for a National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) advisory committee that was set up to review the process to update the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Their first charge was to write a report with recommendations on how the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) selection process could be improved to provide more transparency, minimize bias, and include committee members with a range of viewpoints. Read more >

Bookmark and Share