Is the USDA Silencing Scientists?

[jakeXT]

Late last year, Jonathan Lundgren, a South Dakota-based entomologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, submitted an article to the scientific journal Naturwissenschaften. It described how clothianidin—one of a controversial class of pesticides called neonicotinoids—harmed monarch butterflies. The paper was accepted. Then, in February, a supervisor confronted Lundgren. She informed him that the paper shouldn't have been submitted without official approval. It was sensitive.

Not long after, the National Academy of Sciences scheduled Lundgren to give a presentation on the effects of genetically modified crops on farmland ecology. As is customary, the NAS would pay for his travel to Washington, D.C. Lundgren accepted, but didn't complete the requisite agency paperwork—something that's technically against the rules, but not unusual, with scientists instead filing when they return. Lundgren was reportedly boarding the plane when instructed to return home and reimburse airfare costs out of his own pocket.

In August the USDA formally suspended Lundgren for these transgressions. But according to Lundgren, he wasn't punished for breaking a few rules. Instead, he says, the very agency responsible for America's farms and food punished him for his science.

For anyone who cares about scientific integrity, or about agricultural practices and policies with profound consequences for everyday life, it's a disturbing allegation. The potential ramifications extend beyond Lundgren to other scientists who might be discouraged from studying important but politically contentious topics.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/is-the-usda-silencing-scientists/413803/

[Orrex]

1. Also worth quoting from that same article

Of course, it’s not yet clear what actually happened. Maybe Lundgren just didn’t get along with his boss. It happens. Asked for comment, the USDA declined to discuss Lundgren’s case specifically, but said in a statement that “we take the integrity of our scientists seriously and we recognize how critical that is to maintaining widespread confidence in our research among the scientific community, policy-makers, and the general public.”

Curiously, Lundgren is the only scientist mentioned by name. Is there a list somewhere of other scientists who've allegedly been silenced by the USDA? What were those other scientists working on? How were they silenced, exactly?

The article's title is irresponsible if they can only offer Lundgren's case as evidence of this "silencing." A more accurate title, based on the actual content of the article: "Scientist Claims He Was Silenced By The USDA."

It's also interesting that the title of the linked page is different from the article itself:

Is Obama's USDA Silencing Scientists?

versus

Is the USDA Silencing Scientists?

What are we to make of this added political spin? Does The Atlantic suggest that Obama has a deliberate hand in silencing these scientists? Why use that clickbait title if nothing in the article actually links the story to Obama? Might as well say "Man kills himself on Obama's bridge in Pennsylvania."

[kristopher]

2. You seem to be implying that regulatory capture isn't a major issue.

Many people believe that there is overwhelming evidence the corporations are steering the regulatory ship. There is a strong pattern of behavior in the bureaucracy on this subject that supports the article's point of view.

For example, Hansen resigned from NASA because of the attempts to muzzle his climate change message.

NASA Reaches for Muzzle as Renowned Climate Scientist Speaks Out

NOTE: The following is one of a series of case studies produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program between 2004 and 2010 to document the abuses highlighted in our 2004 report, Scientific Integrity in Policy Making.

Dr. James E. Hansen, the top climate scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), believes that the world has little time to waste in reversing its current trend toward global warming. In late 2005, however, Dr. Hansen's ability to voice his concerns about global warming was severely compromised by NASA public affairs officials. After he called on the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a December 2005 lecture, Dr. Hansen found that NASA officials began reviewing and filtering public statements and press interviews in an effort to limit his ability (as well as that of other government scientists) to publicly express scientific opinions that clashed with the Bush administration’s views on global warming.

While Dr. Hansen's scientific standing is unquestionable—he was described by CBS' 60 Minutes as "arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming"¹—administration officials found some of his conclusions politically inconvenient. In a lecture at the December 2005 meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Dr. Hansen argued that the earth will become "a different planet" without U.S. leadership in cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.² This position conflicted with the Bush administration's policy of opposing mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In January 2006, NASA publicized data showing that 2005 was likely the warmest year in over a century.³

In January 2006, Dr. Hansen told Andrew Revkin of the New York Times that he was warned of "dire consequences" if he continued to make similar statements. Revkin reported that George Deutsch, a public affairs officer appointed by the White House, denied a request from National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, calling NPR the country's "most liberal" media outlet and arguing that his job was "to make the president look good."4 Mr. Deutsch later resigned after it was revealed that he had fabricated his own academic credentials.5

Arguing that his loyalty was to NASA's mission statement, which then read in part "to understand and protect our home planet," Dr. Hansen refused to be silenced. ''Communicating with the public seems to be essential,'' the Times reported him as saying, ''because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."6

Dr. Hansen's public stand helped to bring about...

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/james-hansen.html

In recent years, Hansen, 72, has become an activist for climate change, which didn't sit well with NASA headquarters in Washington. "As a government employee, you can't testify against the government," Hansen told The New York Times.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasa-climate-scientist-james-hansen-quits-to-fight-global-warming/

[Orrex]

3. No, but I don't bother to respond to vague attributions, either

Last edited Wed Nov 2, 2016, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Many people believe that there is overwhelming evidence the corporations are steering the regulatory ship.

Who are these "many people," exactly?

Also, so what? "Many people" claim that they aren't "steering the regulatory ship." Who's right?

By your calculus, do two scientists amount to "many people" in this context?

Also, are you asserting that the USDA is colluding with NASA to suppress dissenters? If not, then why did you bring up NASA here, without addressing my questions about the USDA article?

[kristopher]

4. Do you even know what regulatory capture is?

[Orrex]

5. Yes I do, and why the fuck are you so hostile?

You immediately went on the attack when I challenged your argument-by-assertion.


Sounds rather like you're pursuing a dubious agenda of your own.

[kristopher]

6. There's the inevitable personal attack...

If you understand what regulatory capture is, then you'd know that it's rarely a problem that is isolated in one area.

The example of NASA is entirely germane as a demonstration of the problem laid out in the OP. Different bureaucracies, same atmosphere of message control. And what's the underlying problem? A bureaucratic agenda that is out of step with the needs of the public. In both cases they are avoiding an important part of their mission because of fear it might affect their funding by stepping on the toes of politically influential corporate interests.

[Orrex]

7. Sure, whatever you say

You went on the attack as soon as I questioned you:

"What the hell are you talking about", "
"If you want to continually represent the status quo, I'd suggest you are in the wrong place,", and "Do you even know what regulatory capture is?"

And then, when I called you on it--matching your tone--you predictably complained that I'm engaging in personal attack.

I suggest that you get the hell over yourself. For a purported advocate of integrity, you have a comically thin skin.

Also:

If you understand what regulatory capture is, then you'd know that it's rarely a problem that is isolated in one area.

Since you haven't yet answered a straight question, perhaps you can explain how your citation of one scientist complaining about NASA supports or addresses the OP's question about another scientist complaining about the USDA. That's like saying that evidence of dishonesty at the DMV supports claims that the Bureau of Weights and Measures is therefore corrupt.

[kristopher]

8. How many incidents at NASA were required for acceptance ...

... of the existence of the problem there?
The fact is that the issue of regulatory capture is widely regarded as a problem. If you can't accept that, perhaps you should show that the integrity of the system across-the-board is not an issue of concern.

Orrex, you obviously aren't here for a discussion as your entire approach seems built around attempts to obfuscate and dissemble. I've taken a pretty fair amount of time to address your foot-dragging points, but it's clear nothing is enough for you.

Since you haven't yet answered a straight question

[Orrex]

9. That's the wrong question, considering how you presented it

How many incidents at NASA were required for acceptance of the existence of the problem there?

The way you presented your NASA story, the question that you actually posed is this: "How many incidents at NASA were required for acceptance of the existence of the problem at USDA?" And there is no answer to that question, obviously.

Regardless, there's obviously no hard-and-fast number needed to prove the problem at NASA, except to say that the number is more than the one scientist you cited.

How many examples would you require? Over what span of time? Once we reach that magical number, is the agency hopelessly corrupt across the board, with all of its findings tainted? Can the agency recover its integrity? How, exactly? Or is the purported corruption isolated to the department/branch/team that included the scientist who voiced the complaint?

Orrex, you obviously aren't here for a discussion as your entire approach seems built around attempts to obfuscate and dissemble.

So you're ok with personal attacks now? Noted.

I've taken a pretty fair amount of time to address your foot-dragging points, but it's clear nothing is enough for you.

No, if "nothing" were enough for me, then the nothing that you've offered would be plenty.

[kristopher]

10. Nope.

The way you presented your NASA story, the question that you actually posed is this: "How many incidents at NASA were required for acceptance of the existence of the problem at USDA?" And there is no answer to that question, obviously.

That's pure hogwash. No one (except perhaps climate deniers) questioned Hansen's situation. Are you the equivalent of a climate denier on this topic?

Regardless, there's obviously no hard-and-fast number needed to prove the problem at NASA, except to say that the number is more than the one scientist you cited.
How many examples would you require? Over what span of time? Once we reach that magical number, is the agency hopelessly corrupt across the board, with all of its findings tainted? Can the agency recover its integrity? How, exactly? Or is the purported corruption isolated to the department/branch/team that included the scientist who voiced the complaint?

Obfuscation of the 1st order.

So you're ok with personal attacks now? Noted.

Identifying your discussion tactics isn't a personal attack. It's simply stating what your words demonstrate.

[Orrex]

11. And calling out your nonsense likewise isn't a personal attack.

I'm not sure whether I can call you a liar without running afoul of the Alert process, so I'll simply point out that you make statement inconsistent with material fact and leave it at that.

It's clear that there's no point in further discussion with you. Hell, there was no point in discussing it with you in the first place, given how heavily invested you are in your agenda.

Reply or don't--I won't see it, and I'll be better off for not seeing it.

[kristopher]

12. As usual, long on obfuscation with absolutely zero substance.

Your habit of projecting your behavior onto others can't be suppressed, can it?

[Orrex]

13. Well, I didn't hit Ignore fast enough.

Last edited Wed Nov 2, 2016, 07:20 PM - Edit history (1)

So let's call out some of your nonsense specifically:

You asked me a question, which I answered directly. I then asked you the exact same question, with specific opportunities for clarification, and you tried to dismiss this "obfuscation of the 1st order."

Either you don't know what "obfuscation" means (a distinct possibility, I infer from your overall manner), or you feel justified in holding others to a different standard than others are permitted to hold you. Why such dishonesty?

I'm projecting nothing--I'm directly calling you out for your nonsense, and I'm hardly the only one who sees it.

[kristopher]

14. From my files...

Before the Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 20250
In Re: ) The Department of Agriculture ) Scientific Integrity Policy ) OCS Directive 1074-001 )
To the Secretary of Agriculture:
PETITION FOR RULEMAKING
Submitted by:
Jeff Ruch
Executive Director
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 2000 P Street, N.W. Suite 240
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: [phone]
March 26, 2015
1
PETITION FOR RULEMAKING
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Introduction
In March 2009, President Obama released a memorandum directing the executive department heads to promote new safeguards for scientific integrity within each department.1 The directive specifically addresses the problem of political interference, charging that “[p]olitical officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions.”2 Among other sound principles, the directive requires agencies to create procedures to identify and address compromised information, and to ensure an accurate reflection of scientific information.3 In 2013, the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) released the USDA Scientific Integrity Policy (“the Policy”) purporting to “ensure the highest level of integrity” from its employees.4
Summary
Contrary to the intent of this Presidential directive, suppression and alteration of scientific work for political reasons remain common at USDA. In addition, USDA scientists whose work carries with it policy implications that negatively reflect upon USDA corporate stakeholder interests routinely suffer retaliation and harassment.
The stated purpose of USDA’s scientific integrity policy is to ensure “the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch’s involvement with scientific and technological processes and analyses.”5 However, the Policy fails to clearly prohibit political suppression and interference. While the Policy defines political suppression and interference, it does not include these acts in its definition of misconduct.6 The USDA, by its own admission, has yet to develop procedures for handling scientific integrity complaints.
To compound the problem, an overly broad provision within the Policy actively encourages USDA to suppress scientific work for political reasons. The provision states that
1 Memorandum of March 9, 2009: Scientific Integrity, 74 Fed. Reg. 10,671 (Mar. 11, 2009). 2 Id.
3 Id.
4 OCS Directive 1074-001, Departmental Regulation: Scientific Integrity (U.S.D.A. 2013).
5 Id. 6 Id.
2
scientists “should refrain from making statements that could be construed as being judgments of or recommendations on USDA or any other federal government policy, either intentionally or inadvertently.”7 USDA management routinely relies up this vague but expansively worded provision a pretext for suppressing technical work solely because the scientific conclusions expressed draw the ire of USDA corporate stakeholders.
Further, unlike many of its sister federal agencies, the USDA scientific integrity policy lacks any process or mechanism for preventing politically motivated suppression or for challenging it once it occurs.
Moreover, there are no cogent safeguards for whistleblowers in the Policy, which contains no clear process for protecting scientists raising integrity concerns or filing complaints. Instead, the agency punishes scientists for research that the agency deems controversial, and the Policy lacks procedures for these scientists to seek or receive redress.
Finally, matters of scientific integrity within USDA are shrouded in secrecy. USDA has not even posted a website for scientific integrity information, as stated in the 2013 policy.8
Through this rule-making petition, PEER urges USDA to revise the Policy by adopting the best practices contained within the scientific integrity policies of USDA’s sister federal agencies, so as to –
 Explicitly prohibit political suppression and alteration.
 Broadly protect scientific information from management suppression and alteration except
for reasons of technical merit.
 Employ clear and enforceable procedures for conducting scientific misconduct
investigations and following through when such investigations uncover misconduct, including procedures for taking disciplinary action against managers and political appointees guilty of scientific misconduct;
 Adopt strong protection for scientists who file misconduct complaints or participate in misconduct investigations, or whose scientific work faces politically motivated interference.
 Assure transparency in the administration of the Policy. 7 Id.
8 Office of the Chief Scientist Directive 1074-001, Scientific Integrity (U.S.D.A. 2013)
3
Petition for Rulemaking
Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 16 U.S.C. § 553(e), Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (“PEER”) hereby petitions the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) to adopt best practices for its scientific integrity policy, including eliminating a provision in the current version of the Policy that prohibits scientists from making statements that can be construed as “judgments of or recommendations on” policies of the USDA or the federal government.
Standing to File
PEER is an IRS 501(c)(3) non-profit organization incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia. PEER serves the professional needs of local, state, and federal employees, including scientists, charged with the protection and study of America’s environment and natural resources. As such, PEER is “an interested person” under the Administrative Procedures Act.
Argument in Support of Petition
I. Background
The USDA Scientific Integrity Policy actively enables agency managers to suppress and alter scientific work products for their policy implications, regardless of their technical merit. It also appears clear that agribusiness interests, such as Monsanto Corporation, have access to top agency managers and are invited to lodge complaints and concerns about the published work of agency scientists. Significantly, the Policy lacks any mechanism to effectively challenge this political manipulation of science. This gap is compounded by the lack of whistleblower protection for scientists. As a result, scientists whose work raises troublesome implications or who have the temerity to file complaints about inappropriate skewing of science face the prospect of official retaliation.
In a growing number of cases, USDA managers are interfering, intimidating, harassing, and in some cases punishing civil service scientists for doing work that has inconvenient implications for industry and could have direct policy/regulatory ramifications. For example, in recent months USDA scientists have been subjected to –
 Directives not to publish data on certain topics of particular sensitivity to industry; 4

 Orders to rewrite scientific articles already accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal to remove sections which could provoke industry objections;
 Summons to meet with Secretary Vilsack in an effort to induce retraction of a paper that drew the ire of industry representatives;
 Orders to retract a paper after it had been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The paper could only be published if the USDA scientist removed his authorship thus leaving only the names of authors unassociated with USDA;
 Demotion from supervisory status and a reprimand after the scientist provided testimony before Congress that did not reflect agency preferences;
 Disruptive and lengthy internal investigations to search out any irregularity that could be used for management leverage against the targeted scientist;
 Suspensions without pay and other disciplinary actions for petty matters, such as minor irregularities in travel paperwork;
 Inordinate, sometimes indefinite, delays in approving submission for publication of scientific papers that may be controversial;
 Restrictions on topics that USDA scientists may address in conference presentations; and
 Threats by USDA managers to damage of the careers scientists whose work triggers
industry complaints.
USDA scientists working on topics with direct relevance to industry interests are under constant pressure not to do anything to upset these important “stakeholders.” Rather than shield staff scientists from industry influence, USDA managers amplify it. In short, the USDA Scientific Integrity Policy lacks meaningful procedures to prevent the very sort of abuses that the Policy is supposed purpose.
II. Rule Making Petition
PEER petitions USDA to make the following revisions to the Policy, based on good practices that other federal agencies successfully employ to ensure scientific integrity.
5
1. Adopt NOAA rule on publication of work-related research
USDA should adopt National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (“NOAA’s”) rule regarding publication of work-related research and the Department of Commerce’s (“DOC’s”) policy providing scientist appeal rights if approval for publication is withheld. The USDA’s current scientific integrity policy merely encourages USDA scientists to “participate in communications with the media regarding their scientific findings” and to publish their “scientific findings in peer-reviewed, professional, scholarly journals.”9 Even though NOAA’s scientific integrity policy contains similar language encouraging its scientists “to engage with their peers in academic, industry, governmental, and non-governmental organizations by ... publishing their work in appropriate outlets,” NOAA’s policy also provides that its scientists “are free to present viewpoints, for example about policy or management matters that extend beyond their scientific findings to incorporate their expert or personal opinions.”10 In such instances, NOAA simply requires its scientists to state clearly that they are presenting their individual opinion, not those of the DOC or NOAA.11
An additional protection the USDA policy should include is DOC’s scientist appeal rights. DOC grants its employees “the right to appeal the non-approval of that employee’s Fundamental Research Communication, and has the right to appeal changes that affect the scientific accuracy of that employee’s Official Communication.”12
2. Adopt EPA rule against scientific suppression
The current USDA policy includes contradictory rules about the suppression or alteration of scientific findings. The Policy first promotes “a culture of scientific integrity,” proclaiming that “[s]cience, and public trust in science, thrives in an environment that shields scientific data and analyses and their use in policy making from political interference or inappropriate influence.” The Policy additionally contains language condemning the suppression and
9 Office of the Chief Scientist Directive 1074-001, Scientific Integrity (U.S.D.A. 2013).
10 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NOAA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 202-735D, SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY (2011).
11 Id. 12 Id.
6
alteration of scientific and technological findings.13 However, the Policy goes on to prohibit scientists “from making statements that could be construed as being judgments of or recommendations on USDA or any other federal government policy, either intentionally or inadvertently.” USDA should immediately rescind this vague, overly broad, and easily (and routinely) misused provision. Instead, USDA should adopt the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA’s”) rule about suppression and alteration of findings, which “prohibits all EPA employees, including scientists, managers, and other Agency leadership, from suppressing, altering, or otherwise impeding the timely release of scientific findings or conclusions.”14
3. Adopt NRC process for registering Differing Professional Opinions (“DPOs”) and complaint review.
The USDA should create a specific process for registering differing professional opinions, which would enable it to implement the Policy’s promise to “[e]nsure that mechanisms are in place to resolve disputes that arise from instances in which the scientific process or the integrity of scientific and technological information may be compromised.”15 This language lacks any specific procedure for dealing with scientific disputes and limits itself to potential compromises of the scientific process or the integrity of scientific or technological information.
In contrast, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) instituted specific procedures and a timeline to resolve scientific disputes in its Differing Professional Opinions (“DPO”) Program Handbook.16 The DPO receives review by an ad hoc panel, and the NRC policy provides confidentiality protections for submitters.
As a precondition to submitting a DPO, the employee must first discuss the issue with the immediate supervisor or explain why the submitter feels he cannot approach his immediate
13 “Scientific and technological findings should not be suppressed or altered.” Office of the Chief Scientist Directive 1074-001, Scientific Integrity (U.S.D.A. 2013).
14 OFFICE OF THE SCIENCE ADVISOR, EPA, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY POLICY (2012).
15 Office of the Chief Scientist Directive 1074-001, Scientific Integrity (U.S.D.A. 2013).
16 Another policy USDA should look to for resolving scientific disputes is the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA’s”) scientific integrity policy. The FDA’s Staff Manual Guide offers many of the same protections as the NRC rule for DPOs, but the FDA’s policy is different in that it allows for “interested parties outside the agency to request internal agency review of scientific decisions and their bases.” FOOD AND DRUG ADMIN., SMG 9000.1, GENERAL OR MULTIDISCIPLINE SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY: SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY AT FDA (2012)
7
supervisor.17 Next, the employee submits a written DPO form to the agency summarizing the prevailing staff view, the existing management decision or agency practice in dispute, a description of the submitter’s views and how they differ, an assessment of the consequences, the names of three potential ad hoc panel members, and copies of relevant documents listed in the DPO.18 An employee may submit an unsigned DPO to an NRC manager.19
Before the ad hoc panel reviews the DPO, the DPO Program Manager immediately screens the DPO “to determine if the precondition for acceptance as a DPO has been met.”20 If the DPO is accepted, the DPO Program Manager assigns it to the appropriate Office Director or Regional Administrator to elect members of the ad hoc panel.21 The ad hoc panel conducts a thorough review of the issues.22 No one in a position of authority over the submitter may be appointed to the ad hoc panel.23 The panel should not take more than 30 calendar days after the initial meeting with the submitter to make a recommendation on the DPO.24 The submitter should receive the decision and its rationale within 10 calendar days after receipt of the panel’s final recommendation.25 Each review should be completed within 60 days, unless the DPO involves complex issues in which case the NRC policy allows 120 days for resolution.26
A detailed and well thought out process such as this one would assist USDA in dealing with scientific disputes in a constructive manner that promotes scientific integrity.
4. Adopt State Department policy defining breach of integrity
USDA’s scientific integrity policy defines “research misconduct,” which relates to misconduct by scientists themselves, but the Policy does not clearly include “loss of scientific
17 Id.
18 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM’N, HANDBOOK 10.159, THE NRC DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS PROGRAM
(2004). 19 Id.
20 Id. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 Id.
8
integrity” which occurs when an agency makes decisions based on insufficient or flawed science as a form of misconduct. Indeed, it is loss of scientific integrity that was the focus of President Obama’s executive order.” Instead, the USDA policy defines research misconduct as consisting of only “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.”
The Department of State’s scientific integrity policy defines a compromise of scientific integrity as:
(1) Using scientific studies or data to inform the decision making process that are not representative of the current state of scientific knowledge and research (for example because they lack peer review, utilize poor methodology, or contained flawed analyses);
(2) Misrepresenting the underlying assumptions, uncertainties, or probabilities of scientific findings or attempting to suppress or alter scientific or technological findings (including, but not limited to, those performed by U.S. Government scientists) during any step of the decision making process; or
(3) Altering, or misrepresenting scientific or technological findings in public communications.27
USDA should add the Department of State’s rule to its own definition of research misconduct while making it clear that these breaches of integrity are valid subjects of misconduct complaints which will be thoroughly and impartially investigated.
5. Adopt EPA’s protections for scientists facing retaliation for the content of their work and its protection of whistleblowers and scientists from retaliation
The current USDA scientific integrity policy limits its protection from retaliatory prohibited personnel practices to “those who uncover and report allegations of research misconduct or other violations of scientific integrity as well as those accused of research misconduct”28 Yet, the Policy never specifies what those protections are or how they are invoked. Instead, the Policy pledges to comply with the requirements of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and it expanded protections29-- as if it had a choice.
27 Department of State, Legal and Political Affairs 11 FAM 820, Scientific Integrity (Jun. 13, 2013). 28 Office of the Chief Scientist Directive 1074-001, Scientific Integrity (U.S.D.A. 2013)
29 Id.
9
By comparison, the EPA policy maintains similar protections but “[e]xtends whistleblower protections to all EPA employees who uncover or report allegations of scientific and research misconduct, or who express a differing scientific opinion, from retaliation or other punitive actions. . . .”30
In addition, the USDA policy should outline the specific mechanisms by which promised whistleblower protection will be invoked. Most directly, retaliation should be added to the definition of misconduct and subject to enforcement in the same manner as the rest of the policy.
Conclusion
The USDA Scientific Integrity Policy does not meet its stated purposes and is in obvious need of reform. The poor state of this policy and the absence of serious or thorough implementation has damaged the quality of scientific work emanating from USDA and limited its scope to the detriment of the public interest. In addition, it has failed to shield conscientious scientists from career-crippling retaliation from their own management.
PEER is urging that USDA strengthen its policy by adopting “best practices” already adopted by its sister agencies. Borrowing existing provisions already used in practice also allows USDA to benefit from other agencies’ experience. Moreover, USDA scientists deserve no less rigorous protection than scientists working within other federal agencies.
Accordingly, PEER petitions the Secretary to transform his agency’s Scientific Integrity Policy from a half-finished shambles into a model for others to emulate. Doing so will enhance USDA’s scientific reputation and credibility while allowing agency scientists to do their jobs and better serve the public without fear of reprisal.
_________________________ Jeff Ruch
PEER Executive Director
30 OFFICE OF THE SCIENCE ADVISOR, EPA, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY POLICY (2012).
10