Survey shows hundreds of EPA scientists complain about political pressure

[nebula]

White House to scientific community: Tell us what we want to hear, if you want to keep your jobs.


-------------------------------
Survey shows hundreds of EPA scientists complain about political pressure

H. JOSEF HEBERT
AP News

Apr 23, 2008 17:32 EST

Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists say they have been pressured by superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey released Wednesday by an advocacy group.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar attributed some of the discontent to the "passion" scientists have toward their work. He said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, as a longtime career scientist at the EPA himself, "weighs heavily the science given to him by the staff in making policy decisions."

But Francesca Grifo, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program, said the survey results revealed "an agency in crisis" and "under siege from political pressures" especially among scientists involved in risk assessment and crafting regulations.

"The investigation shows researchers are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations," said Grifo.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., in a letter sent Wednesday to Johnson, called the survey results disturbing and said they "suggest a pattern of ignoring and manipulating science." He said he planned to pursue the issue at an upcoming hearing by his Oversight and Government Reform Committee where Johnson is scheduled to testify.

The group sent an online questionnaire to 5,500 EPA scientists and received 1,586 responses, a majority of them senior scientists who have worked for the agency for 10 years or more. The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in the life and environmental sciences.

The report said 60 percent of those responding, or 889 scientists, reported personally experiencing what they viewed as political interference in their work over the last five years. Four in 10 scientists who have worked at the agency for more than a decade said they believe such interference has been more prevalent in the last five years than in the previous five years.

Timothy Donaghy, one of the report's co-authors, acknowledged that a large number of scientists did not respond to the survey and said the findings should not be viewed as a random sample of EPA scientists.

Nevertheless, said Donaghy, "we have hundreds of scientists saying there is a problem" with assuring scientific integrity within the federal government's principal environmental regulatory agency.

Asked to respond to the survey, EPA spokesman Shradar said, "We have the best scientists in the world at EPA."

The EPA has been under fire from members of Congress on a number of fronts including its delay in determining whether carbon dioxide should be regulated to combat global warming. Johnson also has been criticized for rejecting recommendations from science advisory boards on a number of air pollution issues including control of mercury from power plants and how much to reduce smog pollution.

In the survey, the EPA scientists described an agency suffering from low morale as senior managers and the White House Office of Management and Budget frequently second-guess scientific findings and change work conducted by EPA's scientists, the report said.

The survey covered employees at EPA headquarters, in each of the agency's 10 regions around the country and at more than a dozen research laboratories. The highest number of complaints about political interference came from scientists who are directly involved in writing regulations and those who conduct risk assessments such as determining a chemical cancer risk for humans.

Nearly 400 scientists said they had witnessed EPA officials misrepresenting scientific findings, 284 said they had seen the "selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome" and 224 scientists said they had been directed to "inappropriately exclude or alter technical information" in an EPA document.

Nearly 200 of the respondents said they had been in situations where they or their colleagues actively objected to or resigned from projects "because of pressure to change scientific findings."

Donaghy said EPA management was aware of the survey, conducted by the Center for Survey Statistics & Methodology at Iowa State University. He said while some EPA managers initially instructed employees not to participate, the EPA's general counsel's office later sent an e-mail to employees saying they could participate on their private time.

Source: AP News

[Bolo Boffin]

1. And the EPA scientists are the only scientists in the world...

Oh, wait.

Other scientists showed that the actual consensus view on global warming was correct.

Global Warming: 1600 government scientists (under Bush) vs. Everyone else.

9/11 CT: 88 (or so) 9/11 Truth scientists vs. Everyone else.

Do you see how that works? You're welcome.

[nebula]

2. You think its only EPA scientists?

You'd be wrong...very wrong.


---------------------------------

By Jamie Chapman
6 August 2005

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently issued a scathing indictment of the Bush administration’s record on science. Its report, entitled "Science Under Siege," was issued on June 21. It documents the White House’s distortion, abuse and quashing of legitimate scientific inquiry in order to promote its political agenda.

The ACLU commissioned the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) to draft the report. The UCS issued its own report in February 2004, entitled "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking." This earlier statement has since been signed by over 6,000 American scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 135 members of the National Academy of Sciences.

The new ACLU/UCS report shows that in the intervening 16 months the Bush administration, far from responding to pressure generated by the earlier UCS recommendations, has deepened its attack on science.


Such political hot topics as government backing for creationism over evolution or state intervention in scientifically supported legal rulings on the case of Terri Schiavo are not addressed. By focusing on four main areas that are less in the public eye, the authors establish how negatively the Bush administration has impacted the practice of science in the United States.

The first section details the unprecedented control that government exercises over the control of information. A rising tide of secrecy has produced a doubling of documents being classified as “secret” in the two years after September 11, 2001, reaching a record level of 15.6 million records being classified in 2004. At the same time, the rate of document declassification, or removing them from the “secret” category, has declined by 72 percent.

Besides extending classification authority to new agencies such as the Department of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, the administration has extended the time documents may be kept from public view to as much as 25 years. It has encouraged agency heads to retroactively reclassify previously unclassified documents.

The reason claimed for increased secrecy is the ostensible danger that scientific research will fall into the hands of terrorists, who will use it to fashion weapons. In the actual event, the hijackers who flew hijacked airplanes into buildings on September 11, 2001, used nothing more technologically advanced than box cutters to carry out their plot.

In the name of fighting “the war on terror,” however, the Bush administration is manipulating access to scientific studies. The use of the “secret” classification system is the method by which the Bush administration ensures that only research that the government finds acceptable is performed, and by scientists who are vetted by being subject to security clearance.

Another way the government has withheld research from the scientific community has been to divert federal grants—the primary source of funding—away from basic university research into defense research designated as classified. As the report explains, “he government has funneled millions of federal dollars into the construction of at least four new high-security ‘biosafety level 4’ laboratories for the conduct of research on the most dangerous and exotic pathogens, while funding for basic microbiology and genetics research at universities has declined.”

The report’s authors hint in their subtitle, “The Bush Administration’s Assault on Academic Freedom and Scientific Inquiry,” that there is a connection between the administration’s inhibiting of science and the overall attack on freedom of expression. They state, “stablished individual freedoms of thought, speech and publication have permitted and encouraged the formation of scientific communities. The pursuit of truth fundamentally depends on the degree to which information, ideas, and discoveries can be freely exchanged within these communities.... it is precisely these vital processes of individual expression and mutual exchange that are being threatened.”

In addition to “secret,” an entirely new category has been created that further restricts scientific research. In May 2004, the Department of Homeland Security established the term “For Official Use Only” (FOUO) for “sensitive but unclassified” information, where disclosure could harm “the national interest.” The DHS directive requires that such information not be disseminated orally, visually or electronically to unauthorized personnel. Another DHS directive exempts agencies from releasing “sensitive” information to the public from Environmental Impact Statements, as otherwise required by law.

After September 11, 2001, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission created its own special category called “critical energy infrastructure information” (CEII). This very broad category is exempted from Freedom of Information Act disclosure.

Still under discussion by the Department of Defense is a policy that would require all federally funded research to obtain prior approval by the government before publication or discussion of the work at a scientific conference. After an uproar among scientists both in and out of government, the policy was put on hold.

A Cold War-era State Department Technology Alert List (TAL) of academic subjects viewed as “sensitive” was expanded in August 2002 to add non-technology areas such as landscape architecture, community development, urban design and geography. According to a State Department official, the list itself is now classified, with new fields and technologies being added without consultation with universities.

One of the most striking manifestations of the Bush administration’s impact on science is the dramatic reduction in foreign scholars studying in the United States. A graphic in the ACLU report shows a steady rise in foreign students up until 2002, when the growth number plummets. In 2003, foreign student enrollment fell for the first time in three decades.

The decline in foreign student enrollment is even greater among graduate students. Science enrollments have been especially hard hit, according to an American Association of Universities study cited in the report.

Besides the fingerprinting and digital photographs now required of all overseas visitors under the US-VISIT program, a number of specific restrictions have been placed on foreign scholars. The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) requires schools to report the enrollment, transfer, course of study, employment and home addresses of foreign students. As of last August, SEVIS followed 700,000 students and exchange visitors. Another 100,000 spouses and children were tracked as well.

The State Department refused student visas at the rate of 35 percent in 2003, an all-time high. The number of foreign students waiting for a determination on their applications reached an estimated 25,000 by the fall of 2002. Students seeking to study subjects on the TAL list are subject to additional scrutiny. The US General Accounting Office (GAO) found that in 2003 the average wait for the extra review was 67 days, with a tenth taking more than five months.

The ACLU has also found that the government is using its broad Patriot Act authority that allows excluding those found “to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or to persuade others to support terrorist activity” to deny admission to foreign scholars whose political views are at odds with the Bush administration.

A number of personal “horror stories” are also cited in the report. One was Reza Chamanara, a postdoctoral student in mathematics at Indiana University originally from Iran. In May 2004 he was blocked from returning to the US after giving a lecture in England. Seven months later, the FBI had provided no explanation to university administrators as to why he was still being refused reentry.

The effect of this uncertainty and harassment has led many students to study in other countries. Numerous international scholars have refused to attend academic conferences and meetings in the US because of the security requirements.

The Bush administration’s reach has extended to academics who never attempt to set foot in the United States. In 2003, the US Treasury Department, through its Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), threatened American publishers with million-dollar fines and 10-year prison sentences for merely editing works by authors in countries subject to trade embargoes, such as Iran, Sudan and Cuba. Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian human rights activist with a Nobel Peace Prize to her credit, was denied publication in the US of a book about her life and work.

After publishers and authors filed a lawsuit against this blatant violation of First Amendment rights, OFAC backed down last December. Even while doing so, the government asserted its authority to impose similar restrictions in the future.

The fourth section of the ACLU/UCS report covers “Political Interference in Science.” Of particular concern is a centralized peer review process that submits all federal research to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB). As the authors state, “OMB’s self-insertion into scientific peer review threatens to undermine—rather than enhance—the integrity of regulatory science.”

This section also recapitulates a number of previously publicized cases of appointments to scientific panels of ideologues whose primary qualifications were conformity to the Bush agenda. Among them was Jerry Thacker, a marketing consultant named to the Presidential Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS. He ultimately withdrew under a storm of criticism after his remarks referring to AIDS as “the gay plague” became publicized.

The ACLU/UCS report provides useful exposures of the Bush administration’s efforts to undermine scientific research. At the same time, critical readers must recognize that some conceptions of the authors—and of the sponsoring organizations—are hopelessly naïve.

The authors cast the wholesale assault on science as an “ill-conceived” or “dangerously short-sighted” response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. They present the USA Patriot Act in the same light. The word “misguided” is used over half a dozen times to describe the Bush administration.

In the section entitled “Restrictions on Materials and Technology,” the report accepts Bush’s own terminology by using “rogue nation states” in the course of describing the government “dilemma” in developing an approach to so-called “dual use” technology, referring mostly to biological agents that can be used either progressively or destructively.

This section of the report points out in a footnote—without drawing the obvious conclusion that there is a basic continuity between the Democratic and Republican administrations—that the initial list of “special agents” subject to restrictions dates from 1997, under a provision of the “Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,” a bill promoted and signed by President Clinton to further establish his right-wing credentials.

The report contrasts what it describes as the judiciousness of the Clinton-era approach to the current administration, which expanded the 1997 list to include 64 different pathogens, many of them commonly used in laboratories. New regulations now require researchers not only to register with the Center for Disease Control what “special agents” they are using, but also to document the quantities in their possession, and the purpose of their research.

International students from countries designated as a “state sponsors of terrorism” are banned from research using the “select agents,” as are those US-born researchers who have been convicted of certain crimes, or who have received a dishonorable discharge from the military.

The report points to a provision of the USA Patriot Act that makes it a criminal offense “to knowingly possess any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that is not reasonably justified by protective, bona fide research.” In a serious attack on both artistic and academic freedom, this provision is being used to target an artist, Steven Kurtz of Buffalo, New York. He faces up to 20 years in prison, if a grand jury investigating him for the second time should indict him on charges of terrorism for using common bacteria in a work of art.

The well-meaning reformers behind the ACLU/UCS report fail to understand that the rollback of the scientific outlook corresponds to the basic needs of a capitalist system in crisis. The accumulation of great wealth at one pole of society, along with the impoverishment of greater and greater numbers at the other pole, defies rational analysis. Science must be sacrificed as a result.

The ACLU report can be found at www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17613prs20050621.html

[khaos]

4. "you'd be wrong...very wrong."

isn't that the norm for this character?

[nebula]

6. Bushonian 'science.'

some are true believers.

:rofl:

[seemslikeadream]

10. You're a fast learner

:hi:

[victordrazen]

3. Exactly

My brother works for the EPA and he says they came in and took out their library!
The Justice Dept, (i.e.) was hijacked by the WH, anyone who has listened to the news recently knows about that.
Obviously when the directors of these organizations are appointed by a corrupt Washington there are going to be problems.

[hack89]

5. Reassuring that the WH couldn't suppress the truth. nt

[nebula]

8. Why would the WH want to suppress something that lets them of the hook??

which is exactly what the official story does?

Bushco financed the 9/11 'report,' appointed the members of the commission to write it, and not a single page of it was published without WH approval. So how can a paper published by the most anti-science administration in US history be deemed anything but junk pseudo-science? This 'report' that you so passionately believe in might come in handy as toilet paper for wiping your ass, but other than that it is literally worthless. LOL.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. The 9/11 Commission report is NOT SCIENCE. It was not meant to be a scientific look at anything.

When it doesn't look at scientific matters of inquiry, you can't fault it for being junk psuedoscience because it is not supposed to be a scientific inquiry for anything.

You can question its accuracy as a historical account all day long. But when it doesn't mention the collapse of 7 World Trade or explain in detail exactly why the Towers fell the way they did, you can't use this as a valid criticism of the report.

They left the scientific inquiries to someone else. That's OK. They can do that. That doesn't harm the integrity of the report at all.

At this point, the report appears to be just a couple of steps above the New Testament as far as history. Better example: the report is on the level of a text-critical version of the New Testament. the You look at what it says, you see how they source it, and you realize that there may be a lot more to the actual text in places that we may or may not have found. But I have yet to see anyone on the 9/11 Truth Movement side recognize that the Report itself raises questions about the conduct of the President and the Vice President during the attacks. In the Mineta miasma, the conspiracy advocates have overlooked an actual question of timing that people could seriously hold against Dick Cheney, and is almost certainly one of the main reasons why the two refused to speak to the Commission unless it was together, not under oath, and without a transcript.

I would check the sources of what the 9/11 Commission says, and actively look for more source material. However, the main lie we know about (the changing account of the NORAD et al. response) was sorted out during the Commission's work, as far as I know. This can now be verified because we have the actual tapes of their communication channels. Yell about its defiencies all you want, but yelling at it for being pseudoscience is like yelling at an orange for being a pseudoapple.

[nebula]

14. The commission report's findings were based on the NIST

and NIST is a government agency under the control and influence of their bosses, Bush administration officials. NIST is not an independent party. The White House exercises authority over NIST, just like it does over every other government agency, such as the EPA and the CIA, agencies that have all been thoroughly compromised by White House corruption.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Which ones specifically?

And if NIST was being so blatantly manipulated as the EPA, it should be easy to get the consensus of world scientist to back the controlled demolition theories of the 9/11 Truth Movement. How's that working out for you?

[wildbilln864]

26. It's a slow process....

but it's coming along nicely! :hi: Thank you for your concern.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Slow process? 300 or so in seven years?

Wake me when the revolution starts.

[nebula]

28. Have you been living in a cave?

Hundreds of scientists have in fact spoken out specifically against the findings of NIST.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Please don't confuse an ongoing scientific process with what 9/11 advocates do.

James Quintieri remains on that page, does he not? Tell me, do you know WHY Dr. Quintieri thinks NIST is wrong? Do you? He thinks that the fires burned MUCH hotter in the towers than NIST determined. He thinks that the extremely intense fires overwhelmed the fireproofing and THEN destroyed the towers much as NIST described. Is that REALLY someone that's on your side in all this?

PLEASE don't confuse an actual scientific debate with what ignoramuses like the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are doing.

[nebula]

30. The only ignoramus here is you.

[Sweet Pea]

47. Great comeback.

I thought I was back on the elementary school playground during recess. What's your next post?

"I know you are but what am I!?"

[nebula]

31. bolo's story changes every minute, just like the official story

First you claim only EPA scientists are protesting political interference. Then you claim no scientist or engineer has spoken out against the official 9/11 story, when in fact hundreds, if not thousands of them have.

On all accounts, I proved you wrong.

So go peddle your tired old bullshit elsewhere because no one is buying it.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. "you claim no scientist or engineer has spoken out against the official 9/11 story"

That's not what I said. Please read for comprehension.

"300 or so in seven years?" is what I said. It's right up there on your monitor. Please stop making factually inaccurate statements about my posts. Thank you.

[nebula]

33. Do you think many working scientists/engineers would have their jobs for very long

if they dared to openly speak out against the official 9/11 story? especially if they are working for the government or depend on government grants to fund their work?

Note the ones who are brave enough to speak out tend to be retired or are in a position where the risk of retaliation is minimal, so they can afford to speak out. But I don't know many working scientists/engineers who can afford to risk losing their livelihoods.

[LARED]

34. You live in an alternate universe

Do you think all engineering firms survive on government money? There are literally millions of engineers and A/E firms that do not have any of the concerns you seem to obsess about because they do business outside of the government market.

The reason the vast, vast majority of engineers do not agree with you is because you have not the faintest clue what you're talking about.

[nebula]

36. That's right, genius

Private companies tend to be against their employees taking controversial political positions, so the employees that do, do so at their own risk. This policy is particularly true of engineering firms which tend to be very conservative. And many private firms that employ scientists or engineers rely at least partially on state, county or federal contracts. Contracts they do not want to risk losing.

[LARED]

39. There are many treatments for

paranoia. I suggest you look into some.

Here's a good start. Repeat after me.

"Bush is just a man. He's is not even a particularly intelligent man. The government is operated by regular people that care about the same things you do (or should). The government is not watching me through the TV or computer. I will be OK"

Take a deep breath repeat often.

[eomer]

40. Well that's just patently false.

We got a glimpse of the kind of people operating the Department of Justice a while back in congressional hearings about the US Attorney scandal and they most definitely were not just regular people who care about the same things that we do.

And, as I said, we only got a glimpse -- the DOJ has a much more widespread problem in the kind of people who are operating it than just the few that have been exposed so far. Other federal agencies also have similar problems that have been exposed even less than the DOJ, but the problems most certainly exist. It is not paranoid to think that people like that are operating large chunks of the government; rather, it is a fact.

[LARED]

41. You need to read up-thread a bit to understand the context

I agree there are clearly people not like you or I in important positions in the government. I was trying to make the point that the governments arm of evil influence does not extend into the vast majority of of engineering firms and engineers and scientist.

Something that Nebby seems to be completely convinced of.

[eomer]

42. But government influence does in fact "extend into the vast majority of engineering firms..."

Hell, it extends into my own family. I bet it does into yours too. Because, beside the people in important positions in the government, the influence of the current government is extended throughout the country and throughout the world by way of government propaganda and psyops programs funded by our taxes as well as voluntary collaboration by the vast majority of the news and information media.

Admittedly, this influence is not all-powerful and there are certainly opposing forces that exist (this forum being one of them), but to say that the government's influence does not extend into those entities is not accurate -- there certainly is influence that extends into all of those entities.

So, to me, whatever consensus we can glean from engineers around the country or around the world is not of much value, particularly those engineers who are just mouthing the politically correct answer and not going into detail as to why they hold that opinion. That particular case could easily be explained by reticence to espouse a position that is obviously controversial and grounds for ridicule and being shunned. After all, forget what Bush says about conspiracy theories -- even Bill Clinton says "how dare you" think such thoughts. It is not exactly a friendly environment for an open, and free-thinking discourse on the subject. That could just as easily be the explanation for not many engineers speaking out.

[LARED]

43. So how many engineering firms have you worked with or for? nt

[eomer]

44. What does that have to do with it?

Do engineers not watch teevee?

[LARED]

45. If someone is going to accuse engineering firms of

not speaking out about the "truth of 9/11" because they are afraid of losing business, I would think that someone should know something about the engineering business.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Saying, "bolo, you were right," would just kill you, wouldn't it? n/t

[hack89]

38. What about foreign engineers and scientists?

with all the enemies that Bush has made, why didn't one of them use 911 truth to destroy him?

[hack89]

11. Not what I am talking about

I actually agree with you that the 911 Commission report is a political whitewash. I was referring to how scientist were not cowed by the WH and stepped forward to defend real science. Remember that the entire CT attack on the NIST, FEMA and other 911 studies rests on the idea that scientist are scared to reveal the truth. This report is not good for the truth movement.

[nebula]

12. Again I ask you

Why would they, the WH, want to suppress something that totally lets them off the hook??

Your statements make no sense whatsoever, as usual.

[hack89]

13. So we agree that the WH has done nothing to suppress NIST scientists

or any academic that supports the idea that the towers fell without CD? That's what we are talking about - the truther idea that the entire science and engineering communities knew that Bush murder thousands but allowed themselves to be intimidated into silence. The idea that scientist stepped forward to resist WH pressure on global warming and environmental issues lends credence to the idea the NIST report was good science.

We are not talking about the 911 Commission report - I agree with you that it is a whitewash. We are talking only about the NIST scientific studies and reports.

[nebula]

15. No, we do not agree

NIST is a government agency that has been corrupted by WH politics just as the EPA has been. Just as the CIA and FEMA, and many other agencies have been corrupted. The honest people in these agencies for the most part have quit or been fired, replaced by Bush cronies who are willing to due the bidding of Bush officials.

and again, why would the White House suppress something that lets them off the hook?
Why do you refuse to answer the question?

[hack89]

16. CD gets them off the hook?

Isn't that what they are suppressing?

I will not accept your statement that many honest scientist and engineers have left NIST without some proof - do you any any evidence what so ever or is this unsupported opinion?

[nebula]

17. 6,000 American scientists signed a statement

condemning undue White House interference in the scientific process.

Not 6, not 60. not 600 scientists.

but Six FREAKING thousand.

I rather take their word over the Bush government's, thank you very much.

[hack89]

19. You don't get it

the fact that 6000 scientists were willing protest WH interference in the scientific process means that scientist cannot be silenced by the WH. Which means that the NIST was good science because not a single NIST scientist has stepped forward to protest WH interference. For that matter, not a single scientist, engineer or academic has stepped forward to protest WH interference in 911 studies. This means that there was no interference in 911.

[nebula]

21. 1,600 EPA scientists have protested Bush interference

so according to your strange logic, EPA findings during the Bush years have all been perfectly legitimate as well.

:rofl:

[hack89]

22. No - means we have proof of interference

show me the same proof for 911. That's all I ask.

Bush era EPA science has been undermined by Bush era scientist who have revealed WH interference. Why do they refuse to undermine 911 science?

[nebula]

23. How do you know for a fact that NIST hasn't been compromised?

are you a psychic?

[nebula]

24. The fact that NIST is a government agency

that answers to the Bush administration (just as FEMA, the EPA, and the CIA do), should tell you all you need to know about its credibility.

[hack89]

35. So what will you do when Obama is president

and nothing changes?

[nebula]

18. You claimed the Bush WH tried to suppress NIST/commission findings

I asked you why the hell would they want to do that, when the NIST and commission findings totally lets them off the hook? As usual, you answer with BS nonsense.

[hack89]

20. I did not say that

what I said is that according to truthers, the NIST report is a white wash. The truth community also says that the reason no one at NIST is willing to step forward with the truth is because of WH interference and intimidation. The OP show that scientist can't be intimidated so how do you explain the silence of the science and engineering communities on the "truth" about 911? Why do so few agree with you?

[LARED]

7. I wish the story was more specific as it is possible some

surveyed feel pressured in ways that are opposite to what you may think they are feeling.

In other words it is possible those assessing risk find the risks are lower than politically acceptable and are pressured to make their findings more in line with an agency agenda that believes increased regulation is warranted.

I used to interface with guys from the EPA and DEP a few times a year during audits, and they would often tell stories about how the agency is as politically dysfunctional as large organizations. ie office politics are office politics no matter where you work.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

46. The WH pushed global warming denial for political reasons

and did interfere in the scientific process. Although I think it was really unsuccessful. The vast majority of domestic US scientists heavily resisted the government-backed psuedoscience. Not to mention, the US government's efforts did not affect the environmental scientists in other countries much.