DOJ gags scientists studying BP disaster.

[kpete]

Source: Think Progress

DOJ gags scientists studying BP disaster.

In an explosive first-hand account, ecosystem biologist Linda Hooper-Bui describes how Obama administration and BP lawyers are making independent scientific analysis of the Gulf region an impossibility. Hooper-Bui has found that only scientists who are part of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process to determine BP’s civil liability get full access to contaminated sites and research data. Pete Tuttle, USFWS environmental contaminant specialist and Department of Interior NRDA coordinator, admitted to The Scientist that “researchers wishing to formally participate in NRDA must sign a contract that includes a confidentiality agreement” that “prevents signees from releasing information from studies and findings until authorized by the Department of Justice at some later and unspecified date.” Hooper-Bui writes:

It’s not hazardous conditions associated with oil and dispersants that are hampering our scientific efforts. Rather, it’s the confidentiality agreements that come with signing up to work on large research projects shepherded by government entities and BP and the limited access to coastal areas if you’re not part of those projects that are stifling the public dissemination of data detailing the environmental impact of the catastrophe.

Hooper-Bui’s depictions of samples confiscated by US Fish and Wildlife officials and expeditions blocked by local law enforcement is consistent with the steady stream of reports about obstruction, censorship, and confusion under BP’s private army of contractors. A full and open scientific assessment of the effects of the BP disaster is crucial for the health of the ecosystem and the residents of this American jewel.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/10/scientists-bp-gag/

[babylonsister]

1. Rec'd. This sucks if true. nt

[DJ13]

2. I think we've seen this movie before, but it was a cowboy and air from 9/11 last time

Changealicious.

[mike r]

3. Meanwhile the $75 million liability cap is alive and well and on the books

[defendandprotect]

12. They never got around to changing it ... eh?

[Frisbee]

4. Ah yes, change we can believe in....

Obama is no Bush, but at times the similarities between the two administrations are very scary. This is one of those times.

[Kurovski]

5. *shhh! Don't make Mr. Gibbs mad!*

K&R.

A very, very sad and shameful action on the admin's part.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

8. .

[anigbrowl]

6. As it should

Public comment could prejudice a jury and make a trial impossible, not leasst by exposing information to BP. This is normal procedure for outside experts hired onto a Dept. of Justice investigation about anything - until the trial is over, they only communicate their findings to DoJ lawyers.

Hooper-Bui writes:

"I won't collect data specifically to support the government's lawsuit against BP nor will I collect data only to be used in BP's defense. Whereas I think damage assessment is important, it's my job to be independent -- to tell an accurate, unbiased story."

and goes on to say that she has so far refused to share data with the state or federal government because it might be kept confidential while the suit continues. She hasn't shared any with BP either, but there is nothing oin her account to support think Progress's implication taht the government is colluding with BP in this regard. Their opening line is quite misleading.

Great intentions and all, but basically the area is a crime scene right now, and since it's going to be the subject of a very big lawsuit there are legitimate reasons for controlling information about forensic evidence, just as in any other trial.

[IScreamSundays]

10. "my job to be independent -- to tell an accurate, unbiased story."

Shades of the 9-11 Commission

[snot]

20. She wrote, "research projects shepherded by government entities AND BP"

If your theory were correct, we wouldn't be letting the suspected criminal shepherd the research of the crime.

[pam4water]

7. Why oh why?

[annm4peace]

9. Wikileaks anyone??

I hope Amy Goodman on Democracy Now is covering this.

Is it too much to just ask for some truth?

[defendandprotect]

11. Gives us an idea of how bad disaster is -- and who's working for a cover up of it -- !!

Obama administration and BP lawyers -- corporate agenda, once again!!

[hulka38]

13. Consistent but no less infuriating.

[defendandprotect]

14. A "confidentiality agreement" is anti science in the public interest . . ..

and once again we see the corporate interests are being protected before the public's!!

Shame, Obama -- SHAME -- SHAME!!

[SpartanDem]

15. Is really surprising or and outrage

that the DOJ wants confidentially while they investigate?

[metapunditedgy]

16. Absolutely pathetic if true. Just pathetic. Who fears the truth? I don't. Only the guilty

and their enablers fear transparency and truth.

Every day, more crap like this.

[No Elephants]

17. Most transparent administration ever--until someone wants info they'd rather not make public,

[defendandprotect]

18. Why is this taken out of "General Discussion" and dumped here???

THIS is the working of the Obama administration and BP lawyers in trying to

cover up this vast disaster -- !!!

THIS should be in "General" --

[blindpig]

25. Out of sight, out of mind.

Just like the oil.

[defendandprotect]

26. You're right . . . . how many of us followed the thread here ... few I presume ...

someone was very anxious to get this out of General --

Sickening --

[snot]

19. K&R'd

[niyad]

21. k and r--sad, but, alas, not surprising in the least. bp must be protected at all costs.

[Downwinder]

22. Sign our agreement and become embedded,or ?

We shell your hotel.
We arrest you taking pictures.
all sorts of things might happen.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. If we know their results are wrong,

then the next step is too find the flaws in their methodology.

[midnight]

24. K&R

[maryf]

27. K&Rnt

[jpak]

28. You know, if the DoJ is going to take BP to court, it has to have control of the data

If they don't, they could fuck up the court case

I don't see anything sinister in this - it's just good legal practice

[Nihil]

32. Rare as it is ...

... I totally agree with you! (and the other two posters on this thread
who seem to be thinking *before* typing ... novel approach I know ...)

:shrug:

[blindpig]

33. Given the way this has gone down....

that seems more like a convenient smoke screen. If the government hadn't acted like BP's personal assistant during this whole affair I might give that some consideration, not now.

[Spheric]

29. Science sucks, don't you know.

:sarcasm:

[Greyskye]

30. Not how this is supposed to happen.

:kick:

[maryf]

31. kick, nt