Scientists Seeking Whistleblower Protection

Scientists Seeking Whistleblower Protection

April 2008 - Four dozen groups spanning the 
political spectrum sent a letter to the U.S. Senate Tuesday urging 
lawmakers to include scientists who work for the federal government in 
pending legislation designed to strengthen protection for whistleblowers. 
The coalition of academic, consumer, environmental, government reform and 
health groups, which includes the Consumer Federation of America, the 
Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the Federation of American 
Scientists, was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS. 
"Scientists are less inclined to speak out when they have no protection 
against retaliation," said Francesca Grifo, director of the UCS Scientific 
Integrity Program. 
"We must encourage federal scientists to report when research is censored 
or manipulated," she said. "Bringing misconduct to light can help protect 
American families from unsafe consumer products, unsafe drugs, and a 
polluted environment." 
Sometime in the next few weeks the House and Senate are expected to 
reconcile differences between their versions of the Whistleblower 
Protection Enhancement Act. 
In general, both versions strengthen protections for federal workers who 
report waste, fraud and abuse. But the final bill may not extend those 
protections to federal scientists who speak out when federal research is 
distorted or suppressed. The House legislation includes specific 
protections for scientists, but the Senate version does not. 
"Federal government scientists play a crucial role in providing data and 
scientific analyses to policy makers so they can make the best, most 
informed decisions about our environment, health and national security," 
the coalition letter states. "Whether it is toy safety, drug efficacy or 
air quality, we count on federal agencies to use independent and unbiased 
science to protect us from harm." 
Federal scientists need whistleblower protection now more than ever, Grifo 
said. Over the last few years private groups such as UCS and news 
organizations have documented what appears to be a growing incidence of 
political interference in federal science. 
For example, more than a third of the nearly 3,400 federal scientists at 
nine agencies who responded to UCS questionnaires since 2005 reported they 
fear retaliation for openly expressing concerns about their agency's work. 

An example of the difficulties that government scientists can encounter is 
happening now at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
The Service is placing its scientists in an ethical bind by issuing 
contradictory and confusing directives, according to Public Employees for 
Environmental Responsibility, PEER, an organization of government workers 
in natural resources agencies, which signed the letter to the Senate. 

On one hand, the Service is encouraging its scientists to be open and 
honest, but, on the other hand, they are under orders not to share any 
agency scientific "documents, assessments and drafts" with outsiders, PEER 
points out. 

On January 28, 2008, the Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a "Scientific 
Code of Professional Responsibility" which tells agency scientists to:

  "Place reliability and objectivity of scientific activities, reporting 
  and application of scientific results ahead of…allegiance to individuals 
  and organizations"

  "Distinguish between positions that are rooted in scientific information 
  assessments and those rooted in organizational values, and make this 
  distinction in written and oral presentations"

  "Disseminate scientific information to the scientific community and the 
  public to promote understanding and appreciation for fish and wildlife 
  and their habitats."
  
These precepts contrast with the "guidance" issued by Fish and Wildlife 
Service Director Dale Hall on February 3, 2006 in which he warned 
scientists to avoid "premature briefings." 
"It is imperative that all documents, assessments and drafts remain inside 
the Service, except for discussions as appropriate with recognized federal 
and state peers," wrote Hall. 
"Rather than being clear and unambiguous, the Fish and Wildlife Service 
has cloaked its ethics guidelines in mixed messages and contradictory side 
orders," said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. 
Ruch cited a PEER survey of Fish and Wildlife Service scientists showing 
what Ruch calls "widespread confusion as to what they are allowed to say 
or write." 
"Basic principles of scientific openness and honesty should be 
government-wide, said Ruch, not confined to the agency that is the source 
of political embarrassment this quarter." 
The letter's 48 signatories include: American Association of Law 
Libraries, American Association of University Professors, American 
Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, American Library Association, 
Association of American Publishers, Association of Reproductive Health 
Professionals, Californians Aware, Center for Biological Diversity, Center 
for Inquiry, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Common Cause, 
Concerned Foreign Service Officers, Conservation Northwest, Consumer 
Federation of America, Consumers Union, Defenders of Wildlife, Doctors for 
Open Government, Earthjustice, Endangered Species Coalition, Essential 
Information, Ethics in Government Group, Federation of American 
Scientists, Georgians for Open Government, Government Accountability 
Project, Health Integrity Project, Justice Through Music, Liberty 
Coalition, Minnesota Coalition on Government Information, National 
Coalition Against Censorship, National Research Center for Women & 
Families, National Women's Health Network, Natural Resources Defense 
Council, New Jersey Work Environment Council, OMB Watch, 
OpenGovernment.org, PEN American Center, Project on Government Oversight, 
Public Citizen, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, 
Reproductive Health Technologies Project, The Multiracial Activist, The 
New Grady Coalition, The Ornithological Council, The Rutherford Institute, 
The Student Health Integrity Project, U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation, 
Union of Concerned Scientists, and Western Nebraska Resources Council.

---