In 2007, new regulatory policies and the inability of federal agencies to protect the public made headlines more so than at any time in recent memory. Four themes dominated regulatory policy this year: an increase in White House influence over agency rulemaking activity and discretion, which added a perception of more political manipulation; the inability of the federal government to protect the public by ensuring the safety of imported goods; the voice of some industry groups calling for regulation; and the Bush administration's refusal to regulate in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, as in the case of climate change. At best, government has attempted to respond to crises instead of getting ahead of the curve. This has left the public uncertain about whether we can count on our government to provide adequate safeguards.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to revise the national standard for airborne lead pollution, but differing scientific opinions among federal officials are further complicating a protracted rulemaking effort. The prevailing interpretation may have a significant impact on the agency's decision to tighten or weaken the standard.

The National Research Council of the National Academies issued a report in October calling for policies to improve government openness with regard to scientific information. The report stressed that certain government policies developed after 9/11 overly restrict access to scientific information and thereby harm scientific progress and national security.

The White House has issued new guidelines for federal agencies in conducting risk analysis. Risk analysis, of which risk assessment is a central factor, is a process by which agencies identify and evaluate risks such as toxic exposure or structural failure. Risk analysis often lays the scientific or technical foundation for public health and safety rulemakings.