Transparency in science is a laudable goal. By describing with sufficient clarity, detail, and completeness the methods they use, and by making available the raw data that underlie their analyses, scientists can help ensure the reproducibility of their results and thus increase the trustworthiness of their findings and conclusions. At the same time, transparency is not in an of itself a definitive standard for the usefulness of science in policy making. A proposed rule at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,”1 goes too far in barring from pivotal consideration in regulations any scientific study that does not have all data and analytic models made publicly available, unless special dispensations are granted. In particular, epidemiological and clinical studies that are designed to protect the confidentiality of personal health information may be highly germane to establishing environmental standards yet ethically barred from making all data publicly available. Other studies may rely on proprietary information, and their main findings may have been

中文翻译：

---

研究中透明度的使用和误用

科学的透明度是一个值得称赞的目标。通过足够清晰、详细和完整地描述他们使用的方法，并通过提供作为分析基础的原始数据，科学家可以帮助确保他们的结果的可重复性，从而提高他们的发现和结论的可信度。同时，透明度本身并不是科学在政策制定中有用性的明确标准。环境保护署 (EPA) 的一项拟议规则“加强监管科学的透明度”1 在禁止任何未公开所有数据和分析模型的科学研究的法规中进行关键考虑方面走得太远，除非有特殊规定被授予。特别是，旨在保护个人健康信息机密性的流行病学和临床研究可能与建立环境标准高度相关，但在道德上禁止公开所有数据。其他研究可能依赖于专有信息，他们的主要发现可能是