Science
FDA Approves Journavx Drug to Treat Pain Without Addiction Risk
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85b08/85b0833b15cb190ebf5c022d7385fd48e1b46651" alt="FDA Approves Journavx Drug to Treat Pain Without Addiction Risk FDA Approves Journavx Drug to Treat Pain Without Addiction Risk"
The Food and Drug Administration approved a new medication Thursday to treat pain from an injury or surgery. It is expensive, with a list price of $15.50 per pill. But unlike opioid pain medicines, it cannot become addictive.
That is because the drug, suzetrigine, made by Vertex Pharmaceuticals and to be sold as Journavx, works only on nerves outside the brain, blocking pain signals. It cannot get into the brain.
Researchers say they expect it to be the first of a new generation of more powerful nonaddictive drugs to relieve pain.
To test the drug, Vertex, which is based in Boston, conducted two large clinical trials, each with approximately 1,000 patients who had pain from surgery. They were randomly assigned to get a placebo; to get the opioid sold as Vicodin, a widely used combination pain medicine of acetaminophen (Tylenol) and hydrocodone; or to get suzetrigine.
In one trial, patients had an abdominoplasty, or tummy tuck. In the other, they had a bunionectomy. Side effects of suzetrigine reported by patients were similar to the ones reported by those taking the placebo.
The company also submitted data from a 250-person study that assessed the drug’s safety and tolerability in patients with pain from surgery, trauma or accidents.
Suzetrigine eased pain as much as the combination opioid. Both were better than the placebo at relieving pain.
Suzetrigine’s price, though, is much higher than that of acetaminophen plus hydrocodone. Patients are expected to take two pills a day, for a total cost of $31 a day. The older drug, said Dr. John D. Loeser, an emeritus pain expert at the University of Washington, is “dirt cheap” at pennies per pill.
But suzetrigine does not have opioids’ unpleasant side effects like nausea and drowsiness, and it is nonaddictive.
“There are a number of people who, once they have an opioid, want an opioid constantly,” Dr. Loeser said.
About 85,000 people a year become addicted after taking a prescription opioid, said Dr. David Altshuler, chief scientific officer at Vertex. It’s a small proportion of the 40 million prescribed opioids each year for acute pain — from surgery, accidents or trauma — but is nonetheless a large number, he said.
The story of suzetrigine began in the late 1990s with basic research by Dr. Stephen Waxman of Yale. He wondered how nerve cells signal pain to the brain.
Nerve cells have nine sodium channels — tiny molecular batteries — that generate electrical signals.
But, he discovered, two of those channels are only active outside the brain. One, called Nav1.7, is like the fuse for a firecracker, Dr. Waxman said. A nerve cell activates Nav1.7. That signal, in turn, activates a second channel, Nav1.8, which, he said, sends electrical signals of pain to the brain.
It seemed that a drug that could block Nav1.7 or Nav1.8 could be a potent pain medication that would have no effects on the brain, and therefore would not be addictive. (Dr. Waxman is not paid by Vertex, but does consult for other companies working on similar drugs.)
But there was another piece of the puzzle: Were these lab results applicable to humans?
If the lab work was predictive, people with mutations that made Nav1.7 or Nav1.8 fire constantly would be in constant pain. And people with the opposite mutation — one that blocked the channels — should feel no pain.
Both sorts of mutations would be extremely rare, if they existed.
Dr. Waxman contacted pain physicians across the entire Northern Hemisphere, asking if they had patients who had constant, intractable pain that could be caused by mutations that made Nav1.7 or Nav1.8 overactive. He came up empty-handed.
Then, in 2004, the Erythromelalgia Association told him about a family in Alabama whose members were wracked with pain. Most had ended up addicted to opioids and were unable to go to school or to work. Their condition was called “Man on Fire syndrome.”
Dr. Waxman and his colleagues found that the members of this family had a mutation in the Nav1.7 channel that made their pain nerves fire constantly.
Another group of researchers reported that a family in Pakistan whose members felt no pain had a mutation that blocked the same channel from firing. People called them firewalkers because they could walk on hot coals and feel nothing, which they did for money.
Vertex’s new drug, which blocks the Nav1.8 channel, is highly specific — the other sodium channels are left alone by the drug. Suzetrigine’s effects disappear when people stop taking the pills.
But although people with acute pain might need such a drug, there is also another group that needs pain relief but has few good options — those who have damaged nerves that cause constant pain, called peripheral neuropathic pain. That group includes people with diabetes, which can make the hands or feet hurt or go numb, among other symptoms. And it includes people with lumbosacral radiculopathy, or pinched nerves in the spine. Sciatica is one form of this condition.
In small studies, Vertex found that suzetrigine helped those with diabetic neuropathy, but was no better than placebo in those with pinched spinal nerves.
But, Dr. Altshuler said, the company is going ahead with larger studies in both groups of patients. While analysts and researchers deemed the results disappointing in patients with pinched nerves in their spines, the company decided to proceed because there are no approved drugs for the painful condition, and because the drug is safe and “the mechanism of action is so clearly validated.”
“No one has ever helped these four million people,” he said.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6781a/6781a0fd8834eed59ed9ab9ebc47c1517b716739" alt=""
Science
Mass firings across NOAA and National Weather Service ignite fury from scientists worldwide
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4b0c1/4b0c1522c76a08e253836731ef149aa859e9e658" alt="Mass firings across NOAA and National Weather Service ignite fury from scientists worldwide Mass firings across NOAA and National Weather Service ignite fury from scientists worldwide"
As federal job eliminations struck the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service on Thursday, scientists and environmental advocates denounced the cuts, saying they could cause real harm to Americans.
The full extent of the layoffs across NOAA were not immediately clear, but Democratic legislators said hundreds of scientists and experts had been notified of terminated employment. NOAA — which includes the National Hurricane Center and the Tsunami Warning Center — is the latest in a string of federal agencies targeted for cuts by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.
“Musk’s sham mission is bringing vital programs to a screeching halt,” U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, wrote in a statement Thursday. “People nationwide depend on NOAA for free, accurate forecasts, severe weather alerts, and emergency information. Purging the government of scientists, experts, and career civil servants and slashing fundamental programs will cost lives.”
Susan Buchanan, a spokesperson for NOAA, declined to comment on the cuts, saying in a statement that the agency would not be discussing personnel matters, “per long-standing practice.”
“NOAA remains dedicated to its mission, providing timely information, research and resources that serve the American public and ensure our nation’s environmental and economic resilience,” Buchanan said. “We continue to provide weather information, forecasts and warnings pursuant to our public safety mission.”
Several people who identified themselves as NOAA or weather service employees wrote on social media that they, or family members, had received an email Thursday notifying them that they had been terminated. It appeared that many were considered probationary employees, meaning they were recently hired or promoted.
NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Labratory posted on X that it would be ending its public communication services “due to a reduction in staff.” It wasn’t immediately clear how other operations might suffer, but scientists across the globe worried there could be dangerous effects. NOAA agencies provide key alerts and forecasts during weather emergencies and monitor for extreme events, such as hurricanes, tsunamis and dangerous fire weather.
“The fact of the matter is that the private sector, as it presently exists, simply cannot quickly spin up to fill any void left by substantial dismantling of NOAA and/or the NWS,” Daniel Swain, a UCLA climate scientist said in a statement on social media. “The now-confirmed and rumored additional cuts to come at NOAA/NWS are spectacularly short-sighted, and ultimately will deal a major self-inflected wound to the public safety of Americans and the resiliency of the American economy to weather and climate-related disasters.”
It’s unclear the exact nature of the NOAA firings, but they are likely to be subject to a legal review. A federal judge just on Thursday blocked several mass firings of probationary employees at federal agencies because they were probably carried out illegally.
But the mass exodus of NOAA employees shocked environmental advocates and scientists across the globe, particularly those focused on the climate, environment and meteorology.
“Gutting NOAA will hamstring essential lifesaving programs that forecast storms, ensure ocean safety and prevent the extinction of whales and sea otters,” said Miyoko Sakashita, the oceans program director for the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental nonprofit that works to protect wildlife. “I think most Americans want these kinds of vital government services protected, and we’ll do everything we can to defend them.”
Juan Declet-Barreto, a senior social scientist for climate vulnerability at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a member-supported group of scientists, called the move from the Trump administration reckless for both the safety of communities and the future of climate science.
“Decimating the nation’s core scientific enterprise, even as costly and deadly climate change impacts and extreme weather events worsen, flies in the face of logic, common sense and fiscal responsibility,” Declet-Barreto said. “NOAA’s data and science are used routinely by weather forecasters, mariners, farmers, emergency responders, businesses and everyday people across the country. Everyone in the United States relies on NOAA in their daily lives whether they realize it or not, something that will come into focus for many in the weeks and months ahead.”
Jeff Watters, the vice president of external affairs for the Ocean Conservancy, a national nonprofit focused on improving the health of the sea, said the cuts to NOAA will hurt the ocean.
“The indiscriminate firing of employees is going to sabotage NOAA’s ability to do essential work that every single American relies on,” Watters said in a statement. “NOAA is the eyes and ears for our water and air — the agency tracks our weather and climate; monitors tides and surf forecasts; allows for the safe deployment and navigation of satellites, ships, and doppler radar. It acts as a first responder with its weather and hurricane emergency alerts; its tsunami warning centers; its oil spill response capabilities; its marine mammal stranding network; and its harmful algal blooms early warning systems. NOAA even keeps seafood on the table. Americans depend on NOAA each and every day, and so does the health of the ocean.”
Science
Intuitive Machines’ Athena Lander Launches on Journey to the Moon
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e2761/e276123b3656db782e3cf12b3355b52415a84e0c" alt="Intuitive Machines’ Athena Lander Launches on Journey to the Moon Intuitive Machines’ Athena Lander Launches on Journey to the Moon"
Intuitive Machines landed a robot on the moon last year. Can the Houston company do it again, but keep the spacecraft upright this time?
The company’s second lander, named Athena, launched on Wednesday evening on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. It is now on an arcing path to the moon.
The spacecraft turned itself on, but then several minutes of suspense followed when it was late to check in. Eventually, data from the probe arrived, accompanied by relief at Intuitive Machines’ mission control.
On March 6, the spacecraft will attempt to land in Mons Mouton, a region about 100 miles from the moon’s south pole. That will be closer to the south pole than any previous spacecraft has landed.
When Intuitive Machines’ first lander, Odysseus, set down on the moon in February last year, it managed to communicate with Earth even though it had toppled on its side. It was the first commercially operated lander to reach the moon’s surface, and the first American vehicle to land softly on the moon since Apollo 17 in 1972.
The main payload on Athena is a drill for NASA as part of its Commercial Lunar Payload Services program. Paying a commercial company like Intuitive Machines to take something to the moon is cheaper for NASA than designing and building its own spacecraft.
The drill is designed to dig about three feet below the surface, pulling up lunar soil about four inches at a time and dropping it onto a pile on the surface. An instrument known as a mass spectrometer will then sniff around the drilled material for compounds like frozen water that easily transform into gases.
The Athena lander is also carrying three robotic rovers and a small flying “hopper” that will be deployed after landing.
The largest rover, known as the Mobile Autonomous Prospecting Platform, or MAPP, is part of a NASA-financed test of the first cellphone network on the moon. Nokia won financing from the space agency to test the technology but then needed a way to move at least one antenna some distance from the lander. So Nokia hired a company called Lunar Outpost to build the rover, which is about the size of a small dog.
Lunar Outpost sold space on MAPP to other customers. One, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, built a tiny rover called AstroAnt, which will crawl around on the top flat surface of MAPP.
Athena will also deploy a rover called Yaoki, built by a Japanese company, Dymon, that is a bit bigger than a Mac mini computer.
Intuitive Machines built the hopper as part of another NASA contract. The small rocket-powered craft could offer new opportunities to explore long distances, similar to the way NASA’s Ingenuity helicopter on Mars provided a different way to explore areas not easily reached on the ground.
On the airless moon, helicopters cannot fly, but thrusters will allow the hopper to fly long distances. It will also be carrying one of the Nokia cellphone antennas. The plan is to fly into one of the moon’s permanently shadowed craters.
Why did Intuitive Machines’ last lander topple over?
The Odysseus lander was supposed to use a laser altimeter to help guide it to the moon’s surface. But because of an oversight during the launch preparations, a safety switch for the device was never disabled, rendering that tool useless. Engineers at Intuitive Machines hurriedly rewrote their landing software to use similar measurements from an experimental NASA instrument on the spacecraft. But they missed updating one key parameter in the computer code, and the landing software ignored the data.
The spacecraft thus landed oblivious to its exact altitude, only guessing its distance above the surface based on horizontal speed calculated from camera images and measurements of accelerations in the spacecraft’s velocity. The guesses were close enough that it did not crash, although it was still moving horizontally. The landing gear broke, and the spacecraft tipped.
The Athena lander is almost identical to Odysseus — each is what the company calls its Nova-C design — and Intuitive Machines officials said they had tested the laser multiple times.
What other spacecraft are traveling with Athena?
Three more separate spacecraft are riding on the Falcon 9 rocket. They are essentially taking advantage of extra payload space in the rocket for a cheaper ride to space.
One, Lunar Trailblazer, is a lost-cost NASA mission — about $100 million — designed to measure the distribution of water on the moon from orbit.
While Athena will make a quick one-week trip to the moon, Lunar Trailblazer will take a more leisurely, fuel-efficient path. If launch occurs on Wednesday, it will take just over four months to reach the moon. (If the launch occurs on a different day, the trajectory changes, and the journey could be as long as seven months.)
A second spacecraft, Odin, is a microwave-size spacecraft built by the company AstroForge of California. It will head to a near-Earth asteroid to examine whether it might be full of valuable metals that could be mined in the future.
A third vehicle, CHIMERA GEO 1, is a spacecraft from Epic Aerospace of San Francisco designed to put small satellites in distant orbits.
An eclipse?!
The mission on the surface is scheduled to last for less than one lunar day, or about 10 Earth days, until the sun sets. With no solar energy, the spacecraft’s batteries will run out of power.
But in the middle of the lunar day, on March 14 at about 2 a.m. Eastern time, darkness will fall for a few minutes — an eclipse when the Earth passes between the sun and the moon.
The solar-powered lander will have to draw power from its batteries during the eclipse but should survive.
What else is landing on the moon soon?
Athena is the third commercial lander launched toward the moon this year, although it might be the second to arrive.
On Jan. 15, a Falcon 9 rocket launched carrying the other two landers — Blue Ghost from Firefly Aerospace of Austin, Texas, and Resilience by Ispace of Japan.
Blue Ghost, like Athena, is part of NASA’s CLPS program, and it is scheduled to land on March 2, ahead of Athena. It is headed toward Mare Crisium, a basin in the northeast quadrant of the near side of the moon.
Resilience, also known as the Hakuto-R Mission 2 lander, is taking an indirect route and is expected to arrive at the moon in May. Its landing site is near the center of Mare Frigoris, or the Sea of Cold, in the moon’s northern hemisphere. This will be Ispace’s second lunar landing attempt. Its first mission, in 2023, crashed.
Science
She Lobbied for Formaldehyde. Now She’s at E.P.A. Approving New Chemicals.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/23563/23563bcaef2d38b1252ad0252f5650ad8e993fdc" alt="She Lobbied for Formaldehyde. Now She’s at E.P.A. Approving New Chemicals. She Lobbied for Formaldehyde. Now She’s at E.P.A. Approving New Chemicals."
Formaldehyde, the chemical of choice for undertakers and embalmers, is also used in products like furniture and clothes. But it can also cause cancer and severe respiratory problems. So, in 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency began a new effort to regulate it.
The chemicals industry fought back with an intensity that astonished even seasoned agency officials. Its campaign was led by Lynn Dekleva, then a lobbyist at the American Chemistry Council, an industry group that spends millions of dollars on government lobbying.
Dr. Dekleva is now at the E.P.A. in a crucial job: She runs an office that has the authority to approve new chemicals for use. Earlier she spent 32 years at Dupont, the chemical maker, before joining the E.P.A. in the first Trump administration.
Her most recent employer, the chemicals lobbying group, has made reversing the Environmental Protection Agency’s course on formaldehyde a priority and is pushing to abolish a program under which the agency assess the risks of chemicals to human health. In recent weeks it has urged the agency to discard its work on formaldehyde entirely and start from scratch in assessing the risks.
The American Chemistry Council is also seeking to change the agency’s approval process for new chemicals and speed up E.P.A.’s safety reviews. That review process is a key part of Dr. Dekelva’s purview at the agency.
Another former chemistry council lobbyist, Nancy Beck, is back alongside Dr. Dekleva at the E.P.A. in a role regulating existing chemicals. The council’s president, Chris Jahn, told a Senate hearing shortly after the Trump inauguration that his group intended to tackle the “unnecessary regulation” of chemicals in the United States. “A healthy nation, a secure nation, an economically vibrant nation relies on chemistry,” he said.
It is not unusual or unlawful for industry groups to seek to influence public policy in the interest of their member companies. The A.C.C. estimates that products using formaldehyde support more than 1.5 million jobs in the United States.
What has been extraordinary, health and legal experts said, is the extent of the industry’s effort to block the E.P.A.’s scientific work on a chemical long acknowledged as a carcinogen, and how the architect of the effort was back at the agency as a regulator of chemicals. At the same time, the Trump administration has moved to sharply reduce the federal scientific work force.
“They already have a track record of ignoring the science,” said Tracey Woodruff, director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California, San Francisco. “Now, they’re in charge of government agencies that decide the rules.”
While leading the chemistry council’s fight to limit formaldehyde regulation, Dr. Dekleva called for investigations of federal officials for potential bias. The industry group used freedom of information laws to obtain emails of federal employees and criticized them in public statements for what they had written. It submitted dozens of industry-funded research papers to agencies that minimized the risks of formaldehyde.
The A.C.C. also sued both the E.P.A. and the National Academies, which advises the nation on scientific questions, accusing researchers of a lack of scientific integrity.
Allison Edwards, a chemistry council spokeswoman, said officials from the group had regularly met with E.P.A. staff members “to share critical science and to try and ensure an assessment of any chemistry is objective, employs rigorous scientific standards, and is reflective of real-world human exposure.” She said, “We’re asking to be one of many stakeholders at the table.”
Molly Vaseliou, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said the agency would continue to make sure it “ensures chemicals do not pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.” At the same time, the agency would also work to approve “chemicals that are needed to power American innovation and competitiveness,” she said.
Formaldehyde’s cancer risk
Formaldehyde’s fumes can cause wheezing and a burning sensation in the eyes, especially when they accumulate indoors. That danger was apparent when formaldehyde in plywood used to build temporary trailer homes for victims of Hurricane Katrina sickened dozens of people.
And there are longer-term dangers, namely several types of cancers. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2004 that the chemical is a human carcinogen, and the U.S. Department of Health listed it as a human carcinogen in 2011.
The chemical is restricted in the workplace, in certain composite wood products, and in pesticides. Yet efforts to strengthen overall regulations in the United States have stalled in the face of industry opposition.
President Biden, whose “cancer moonshot” program had made reducing cancer deaths a priority, revived in 2021 an E.P.A. assessment of the health effects of the chemical, and published a draft the following year. That effort, under the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System, was the first step toward regulating formaldehyde.
The chemistry council led a coalition of industry groups, including the Composite Panel Association and Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers, arguing that formaldehyde had already been rigorously studied and that strict industry controls were in place.
In a half-dozen letters to the E.P.A., Dr. Dekleva, on behalf of a formaldehyde panel at the industry group, raised a list of complaints about the way the agency was carrying out its assessment.
She questioned research linking formaldehyde to leukemia, or cancer of the blood, and accused the agency of not relying on the best available science. There was a dose, she said, at which formaldehyde did not cause risk. There was also research, she said, that showed inhaled formaldehyde did not easily travel beyond the nose to cause harm to the body.
In light of these issues, Dr. Dekleva wrote, agency’s draft assessment was “flawed and unreliable without significant revision.”
To bolster its case, the industry group enlisted experts at consulting firms to submit opinions and studies to the E.P.A. minimizing formaldehyde’s risks. The firms included those previously commissioned by tobacco companies to help defend cigarettes.
The A.C.C. also submitted 41 peer-reviewed studies that it said refuted a link between formaldehyde and leukemia. A New York Times review found that the majority of the studies were funded by industry groups, including at least 11 from the Research Foundation for Health and Environmental Effects, an organization established by the American Chemistry Council.
David Michaels, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University School of Public Health and assistant secretary of labor under President Barack Obama, said the industry strategy was to create the appearance of disagreement among scientists.
While it’s true, he said, that inconsistencies can always exist in studies on humans, “there’s little disagreement among independent scientists that formaldehyde causes cancer.”
Scientists targeted
For more than 150 years, the National Academies has advised the U.S. government on science. In 2021, it was asked to weigh in on the E.P.A.’s work on formaldehyde.
It became a target of the American Chemistry Council.
The industry group used freedom of information laws to obtain internal emails of members and support staff of a panel assessing the E.P.A.’s formaldehyde review, and it accused one staff of showing “bias in favor of disputed research claiming formaldehyde causes leukemia.”
The staff member, a former Environmental Protection Agency scientist, had for example described as “wonderful” the news that Congress might try to replicate an influential Chinese study that had shown formaldehyde could cause leukemia.
Wendy E. Wagner, professor at the University of Texas School of Law and an expert on the use of science by environmental policymakers, said she did not see how the comment reflected bias. “After all, they don’t know what the results will be, do they?” she said. “I would expect all scientists to be enthusiastic about potential future research.”
Dr. Dekleva called for investigations at both the E.P.A. and the National Academies, and for the removal of potentially biased panel members and staff. That included scientists who had previously accepted federal research grants.
In July 2023, the industry group sued the E.P.A., as well as the National Academies, accusing researchers of a lack of scientific integrity. The chemistry council said that lack of integrity made the use of the National Academies research in regulating formaldehyde “arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.”
“It was relentless, and beyond the pale,” said Maria Doa, a scientist at the E.P.A. for 30 years who is now senior director of chemicals policy at the Environmental Defense Fund. “They really ratcheted up their attacks on federal employees.”
The National Academies stood its ground, issuing a report the following month affirming the E.P.A.’s Integrated Risk Information System findings that formaldehyde is carcinogenic and increases leukemia risk.
Those conclusions are shared by other global health authorities.
Mary Schubauer-Berigan, the evidence-synthesis head at the World Health Organization’s Agency for Research on Cancer, said there was “sufficient evidence in humans” that formaldehyde causes leukemia as and nasopharynx cancer. Mikko Vaananen, a spokesman for the European Chemicals Agency, said that while some questions around specific links to leukemia remained unanswered, evidence was sufficient to classify formaldehyde as a carcinogen. Formaldehyde “cannot in principle be placed on the E.U. market,” he said.
In March 2024, a federal judge dismissed the chemistry council’s lawsuit. And early this year, near the end of the Biden administration, the E.P.A. issued a final risk determination, under the Toxic Substances Control Act: Formaldehyde “presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health.”
Mary A. Fox, an expert in chemical risk assessment at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and a member of a committee that reviewed the E.P.A.’s research on formaldehyde, said agency scientists had accurately reflected the uncertainties around the links between formaldehyde and leukemia. But they had documented many other streams of evidence that indicated that link, Dr. Fox said.
“It’s an inevitable progress of science, that as we learn more over time, we generally learn that health effects appear at lower concentrations than we had thought,” she said.
Following Mr. Trump’s re-election, the American Chemistry Council signed onto a letter from a range of industry groups calling for broad changes to policy, specifically citing formaldehyde. “We urge your administration to pause and reconsider” the E.P.A. findings on formaldehyde, the Dec. 5 letter said.
The E.P.A. “should go back to the scientific drawing board,” chemistry council said in January. The group was particularly concerned about the workplace limits the agency was suggesting, which it said ignored steps companies were already taking to protect workers, like the use of personal protective equipment.
The A.C.C. is also supporting a bill from Republican members of Congress that would end the Integrated Risk Information System.
Soon after, Trump transition officials said Dr. Dekleva would be returning to the E.P.A. to run a program assessing chemicals for approval. The chemistry council, which has long complained of a backlog, is pushing the agency to speed up approvals.
During the first Trump administration, agency whistle-blowers described in an inspector general’s investigation how they had faced “intense” pressure to eliminate the backlog, sometimes at the expense of safety. Shortly after the inauguration, the Trump administration fired the inspector-general who carried out the investigation.
On Jan. 20, the A.C.C. welcomed President Trump. “Americans want a stronger, more affordable country,” said Mr. Jahn, the group’s president. “America’s chemical manufacturers can help.”
-
Technology1 week ago
Vision Pro apps: the good, the bad, and the ridiculous
-
News1 week ago
Dominican officials cram thousands of inmates facing no charges into overcrowded prisons
-
Politics1 week ago
Top federal agency exposed for spending billions on migrants in a single year
-
Culture1 week ago
Are NFL players as college coaches here to stay? Why DeSean Jackson, Michael Vick can work
-
News1 week ago
Kamala Harris Has Scrambled the California Governor’s Race Without Entering It
-
Culture1 week ago
Book Review: ‘Theory & Practice,’ by Michelle de Kretser
-
Lifestyle1 week ago
‘Modern Love’ Podcast: Why Gossiping Could Help Your Love Life
-
Technology1 week ago
Reddit vs. Wall Street: the latest in the GameStop saga