posted December 14, 2006 12:43 PM            

New rules require screening of all facts and interpretations by agency scientists who study everything from caribou mating to global warming. The rules apply to all scientific papers and other public documents, even minor reports or prepared talks, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

Top officials at the Interior Department's scientific arm say the rules only standardize what scientists must do to ensure the quality of their work and give a heads-up to the agency's public relations staff.

"This is not about stifling or suppressing our science, or politicizing our science in any way," Barbara Wainman, the agency's director of communications, said Wednesday. "I don't have approval authority. What it was designed to do is to improve our product flow."

Some agency scientists, who until now have felt free from any political interference, worry that the objectivity of their work could be compromised.

"I feel as though we've got someone looking over our shoulder at every damn thing we do. And to me that's a very scary thing. I worry that it borders on censorship," said Jim Estes, an internationally recognized marine biologist in the USGS field station at Santa Cruz, Calif.

"The explanation was that this was intended to ensure the highest possible quality research," said Estes, a researcher at the agency for more than 30 years. "But to me it feels like they're doing this to keep us under their thumbs. It seems like they're afraid of science. Our findings could be embarrassing to the administration."

The new requirements state that the USGS's communications office must be "alerted about information products containing high-visibility topics or topics of a policy-sensitive nature."

The agency's director, Mark Myers, and its communications office also must be told — prior to any submission for publication — "of findings or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are developed."

Patrick Leahy, USGS's head of geology and its acting director until September, said Wednesday that the new procedures would improve scientists' accountability and "harmonize" the review process. He said they are intended to maintain scientists' neutrality.

"Our scientific staff is second to none," he said. "This notion of scientific gotcha is something we do not want to participate in. That does not mean to avoid contentious issues."

The changes amount to an overhaul of commonly accepted procedures for all scientists, not just those in government, based on anonymous peer reviews. In that process, scientists critique each other's findings to determine whether they deserve to be published.

From now on, USGS supervisors will demand to see the comments of outside peer reviewers' as well any exchanges between the scientists who are seeking to publish their findings and the reviewers.

The Bush administration, as well as the Clinton administration before it, has been criticized over scientific integrity issues. In 2002, the USGS was forced to reverse course after warning that oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would harm the Porcupine caribou herd. One week later a new report followed, this time saying the caribou would not be affected.

Earlier this year, a USGS scientist poked holes in research that the Interior Department was using in an effort to remove from the endangered species list a tiny jumping mouse that inhabits grasslands coveted by developers in Colorado and Wyoming.

Federal criminal investigators are looking into allegations that USGS employees falsified documents between 1998 and 2000 on the the movement of water through the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada. The USGS had validated the Energy Department's conclusions that water seepage was relatively slow, so radiation would be less likely to escape.

At the Environmental Protection Agency, scientists and advocacy groups alike are worried about closing libraries that contain tens of thousands of agency documents and research studies. "It now appears that EPA officials are dismantling what it likely one of our country's comprehensive and accessible collections of environmental materials," four Democrats who are in line to head House committees wrote EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson two weeks ago.

Democrats about to take control of Congress have investigations into reports by The New York Times and other news organizations that the Bush administration tried to censor government scientists researching global warming at NASA and the Commerce Department.

posted December 14, 2006 01:23 PM            

If someone in an administration finds themselves at odds with official policy, they have an option, two options actually.

Option 1
Resign their position and seek employment elsewhere.

Option 2
Carry out their responsibilities within the framework of administration guidelines.

Who the hell would think government/agency employees should be free to make the official policy of the government?

Who the hell would think government employees are or should be free to express opinions differing from administration policy in a public forum using their official government status?

Try any of that out in the business world and find out just how fast you will be seeking employment elsewhere.

The proper way to proceed is to make your opinions and conclusions available to the policy makers, especially since it's government resources, equipment and time for which the government is paying which makes those opinions and conclusions possible.

Let me stress, these opinions and conclusions agency personnel are reaching are just that...opinions and conclusions and mostly in arenas were there is a large body of unknown FACTS which are undiscovered or undiscoverable or where so called facts have been twisted or invented to reach a desired conclusion.

posted December 14, 2006 02:51 PM            

quote:

---

Let me stress, these opinions and conclusions agency personnel are reaching are just that...opinions and conclusions and mostly in arenas were there is a large body of unknown FACTS which are undiscovered or undiscoverable or where so called facts have been twisted or invented to reach a desired conclusion.

---

posted December 14, 2006 03:30 PM            

I've also seen statements from some so called government scientists..so called because they are the crackpot scientists I was talking about who use twisted facts, distortions of the truth and when necessary, they just make up their own set of facts to support a finding which agrees with their political agenda.

Further, at least one of those so called scientists admitted he had fudged the facts and outright lied to get people to listen to him. A clear admission he and other crackpot scientists were using their positions to alarm everyone when the facts didn't suit their political agenda.

Not to be forgotten is that these so called scientists work for the government on government time, with government equipment. Whatever work they produce belongs properly to the government which pays them.

The top flight scientists in almost every field do not work for government but rather work in the business world or in privately funded research.

posted December 14, 2006 03:36 PM              

quote:

---

Unfortunately, most of them are the kind of hack scientists who can't cut it in the business world or private research. They are, and should be considered third rate and not the kind of top flight research scientists anyone should be listening to.--jwhop

---

omg!!

**edit....i see you decided to edit that statement....

quote:

---

The top flight scientists in almost every field do not work for government but rather work in the business world or in privately funded research.--jwhop

---

posted December 14, 2006 04:15 PM              

The Pew Institute for Ocean Science is dedicated to conducting, sponsoring, disseminating, and promoting world-class scientific activity aimed at protecting the world's oceans and the species that inhabit them. Established in October of 2003 in partnership with the University of Miami Rosenstiel School for Marine and Atmospheric Science, the Institute is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and other philanthropic individuals and organizations. The Institute is headed by 2000 Pew Fellow and renowned marine scientist, Dr. Ellen Pikitch.

DIRECTORY OF FELLOWS - JAMES A. ESTES, PH.D.

BIOGRAPHY
James Estes is an international expert on sea otters and a specialist in the critical role of apex (top level) predators in the marine environment. He has been a research biologist at the Western Ecological Research Center of the U.S. Geological Survey for more than 20 years. Estes also holds academic posts as research associate and adjunct professor with the Center for Marine Studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

posted December 14, 2006 04:55 PM            

quote:

---

Not to be forgotten is that these so called scientists work for the government on government time, with government equipment. Whatever work they produce belongs properly to the government which pays them.

---

The government for the people by the people? You should know better than to even consider that government scientists should be towing some company line when they work for a government, which (at least in theory) is paid for by it's constituents. If Pidaua was doing government research, and came to a conclusion that would benefit mankind to know, but had her results censored for political reasons, do you really think you'd be up in arms the way you are now?
___________________________________________

posted December 14, 2006 05:08 PM            

This is not an uncommon practice and we have to sign massive confidentiality papers in order to perform research. I had a non-compete clause with the biotech company that forbid me from working or performing similar research with any other biotech company for 3 years after I left.

I was also not allowed to print any of our research findings unless approved by the board, EVEN on research that demonstrated potential adverse reactions to our products.

I had one study scrapped because it was not beneficial for the company. That is the way it works.

It is also the same way working in Gov. When I ran the Veterinary diagnostic lab I was also a part of several research studies growing hepatocytes (liver cells). The PI (Primary Investigator) published results concerning his find which I knew was not accurate as he had changed the parameters of the studies a few times.

I brought it up through the chain - and that is all I can do.

Same held true for the biotech company. Although my research wasn't beneficial to the project it wasn't damning either.

posted December 14, 2006 05:18 PM            

Some here have weak stomachs and the truth makes them queasy.

Thanks God, cancer research scientists mostly work in private funded research and not in government research labs or no progress would ever be made in these areas of research against cancer diseases. Ditto in vaccines and almost every other area of medicine...including stem cell research.

Given the nonexistent progress made by the government scientists there would be no cures for anything.

Government research is a nice dumping ground for those who can't cut the mustard in the real world. I guess someone has to hire them but why do taxpayers have to pay for their incompetence. Government has become the employer of last resort for those who aren't employable in the private sector.

Climate research is no different.

My opinion of Pew is Phew. I don't give a damn what they say they're dedicated to; show me the results.

posted December 14, 2006 05:24 PM            

When scientist loses their objectivity, they are no longer credible and their science will then be compromised.

I have seen this happen in government (I keep telling you I worked on several UNIVERSITY research projects....LOL) and in private labs.

In fact, there was more honor in the private sector because our research produced products that would then be torn apart by the FDA or EPA.

NOW - if I noticed that the researcher at the University was contaminating a project to show that a drug was effective (but I knew it would kill people) I would absolutely blow the whistle. That is a matter of life and death.

posted December 14, 2006 05:29 PM            

____________________

I agree... because when it falls into the hands of government University scientists (or the NIH) they end up spending BILLIONS on the same old project.

At the Univ I referred to we had a 5 year project studying the effects of Whooping cough on mice. Hmmm..... first off, bordatella pertussis is not as common as it used to be. Secondly, we have SO MUCH data from real live human cases, an active and effective vaccine, so basically this study was a cash cow for the BMW driving scientists.

LOL.... I saw more abuse of funds working in goverment research with far fewer results than in the private sector.

posted December 14, 2006 05:30 PM            

quote:

---

I don't give a damn what they say they're dedicated to; show me the results...

---

...and ensure those results conform to what I already think, because if they don't... well I just won't accept them. Ok?

posted December 14, 2006 05:35 PM            

quote:

---

LOL.... I saw more abuse of funds working in goverment research with far fewer results than in the private sector.

---

posted December 14, 2006 05:41 PM            

quote:

---

Well AG, I guess we won't know because I didn't blow the whistle on what I saw. A scientist does NOT change policy. We can provide scientific information and an opinion / conclusion concerning policy, but that is it.

---

As I said before, I don't see where any scientist in the above article is asking to affect policy. What they are asking for is the ability to publish their findings undilluted by politics. Two different things altogether.

If the scientist's conclusions clash with existing policy, it doesn't change the factual basis of the conclusion. Nor does a government scientist's conclusion compel the government to change policy.

quote:

---

When scientist loses their objectivity, they are no longer credible and their science will then be compromised.

---

The only one talking about scientists being unobjective is Jwhop out of an inherent cynicism towards all science that doesn't back up Republican ideals. The "international expert" Petron pointed out doesn't appear to be having credibility problems, and yet he takes issue with censorship. Do you disagree with this 30-year researcher on his beliefs that science shouldn't pass through political censors?

quote:

---

In fact, there was more honor in the private sector because our research produced products that would then be torn apart by the FDA or EPA.

---

The FDA and EPA are government agencies as well, so if we're getting rid of science in government than those bodies should also go away.

posted December 14, 2006 05:41 PM            

Attempting to use Pid to make your point is a mistake acoustic.

posted December 14, 2006 05:48 PM            

quote:

---

Pid is one who would choose what's behind door number 2 and resign...if she found herself irreconcilably in opposition to official policy. Too bad others don't have the strength of character to do so.

---

That's an interesting prediction.

posted December 14, 2006 05:48 PM            

quote:

---

The only one talking about scientists being unobjective is Jwhop out of an inherent cynicism towards all science that doesn't back up Republican ideals. The "international expert" Petron pointed out doesn't appear to be having credibility problems, and yet he takes issue with censorship. Do you disagree with this 30-year researcher on his beliefs that science shouldn't pass through political censors?

---

Exactly. Which is why the private corporations should look upon the idea of hiring pre-phase study groups in order to gain public trust, rather than jumping on to the project right away. Science and public opiinion about it will always differ. Which is why its quite sad that certain innovations (stem cell reaserch for instance) get blocked all togather even before they are given a chance for further developement.

posted December 14, 2006 05:56 PM            

Instead they are bloated entities of red tape, happily accepting the high cost to register products and loving to shut down plants for failing to dot an "i".

Political censorship happens and it does so for a reason. Most government entities, such as the CDC, censors itself anyway. If not we'd have so many damn alerts and this crap with the E. coli at taco bell would be causing mass hysteria.

The behind the scenes censorship is nuts, but a necessary precaution.

For example, when I started noticing a pattern of emerging flesh eating bacteria cases in specific geographic areas I couldn't just put out my findings. I was censored by County policy of how to get things put out, when to put them out and why. So, I had to make my case and present it to the epidemiologist, who then had to work with infectious disease control at the hosptial, who then met with our PIO in the county, who then put out some watered down version of "Hey.. we should watch out for this bacteria... clinics.. do this and that.."

Then behind closed doors, they called in the specific people and took care of business.

It was out of my hands. I understood the politics. I didn't like the way research was conducted at the University so I jumped at the chance when the Biotech company recruited me.

As to the scientist. I am not going to comment because I feel it will end up in some battle of the credentials and I have no false belief mine would ever measure up to his. That doesn't make me feel inferior, I don't measure up to many International Scientists.. but I don't have to...

because.. I'm HOT... LMAO...

Hee hee..... OMG... Saturday is almost here.. hee hee..... Bear is my b-day present... YAY!!!

LOL..... yeah.. so after this evening I won't be back on LL until Tuesday afternoon. I have a wonderful meeting in Phoenix (ewwwww....getting up at 4am is not what I call fun...)

posted December 14, 2006 06:04 PM            

quote:

---

Political censorship happens and it does so for a reason. Most government entities, such as the CDC, censors itself anyway. If not we'd have so many damn alerts and this crap with the E. coli at taco bell would be causing mass hysteria.

---