"Right now, the federal civil service is scared to death." That's a quote from the press release below on how scientific and technical papers, particularly within U.S. environmental agencies, are routinely censored, altered or manipulated for political purposes or under commercial pressure.
In one survey of scientists in a federal aggency more than half of all respondents (56%) reported cases where "commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention".
Here are some excerpts from the testimony given by Jeff Ruch, the Executive Director of PEER -Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs of the House Committee on Government Reform.
"On a daily basis, public employees in crisis contact PEER. In our D.C. office alone, we average five 'intakes' per day. A typical intake involves a scientist or other specialist who is asked to shade or distort the truth in order to reach a pre-determined result, such as a favorable recommendation on a project or approval; of commercial release of a new chemical.
"From PEER's perspective, the federal government is suffering from a severe disinformation syndrome. The level of official dissembling from federal environmental and resource agencies has never been worse.
"The cases that PEER sees increasingly involve agencies manipulating scientific or other technical conclusions to fit a preset political agenda. Moreover, as detailed below, employees who try to expose falsehoods often lose their careers while managers who deliberately sanction official falsehoods more often than not are rewarded or promoted and are rarely, if ever, punished."
PEER and the Union of Concerned Scientists have conducted surveys among federal scientists showing a high degree of political intervention to amend scientific findings. One survey showed:
*one in five scientists had been directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in a scientific document;
*more than half of all respondents (56%) reported cases where "commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention";
*more than a third (42%) of respondents said they could not openly express concerns in public while
nearly a third (30%) felt they could not do so even inside the confines of the agency;
*almost a third (32%) felt they are not allowed to do their jobs as scientists.
One biologist wrote, "We are not allowed to be honest and forthright, we are expected to rubber stamp everything."
Another wrote, "It’s one thing for the Department to dismiss our recommendations, it's quite another to be forced (under veiled threat of removal) to say something that is counter to our best professional judgment."
Although few official government surveys apear to exist on these issues, those that PEER knows about produced outcomes that parallel the results produced by the PEER/UCS surveys.
For instance, a previously unpublished internal survey of Food and Drug Administration scientists, that PEER obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, showed:
*nearly one in five scientists said that they "have been pressured to approve or recommend approval" for a drug "despite reservations about the safety, efficacy or quality of the drug;"
*21% of scientists said the work environment offered little or no room for dissent, with fully half (50%) answering that scientific dissent was allowed only "to some extent";
*more than a third (38%) said procedures for resolving dissent existed at the FDA only to a "small extent" or "not at all".
In his testimony Jeff Ruch concluded, "The underlying problem is one of corruption intellectual corruption where heads are turned the other way so long as disinformation delivers the desired result."
Ruch also pointed out, "There can be no hope of improving the quality of federal agency information if the specialists within the agencies face termination if they dare to try."
Pointing out that there is evidence of agencies lying to Congress and of their ordering Federal employees not to communicate the real facts to Congress on pain of dismissal, Ruch said, "If agencies can lie with impunity to Congress, why should they be expected to tell anyone else the truth?"
Full text of the presentation:
http://www.peer.org/docs/fws/05_20_7_iqa.pdf
------
"DISINFORMATION SYNDROME" AFFLICTS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Officials Routinely Rewarded for Lying and Punished for Telling the Truth
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=554
For Immediate Release: July 20, 2005
Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337
Washington, DC - The federal government suffers from a "severe disinformation syndrome" in which agency specialists are pressured to alter reports by managers who are promoted for breaking the law, according to congressional testimony delivered today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). As a consequence, scientific and technical papers, particularly within environmental agencies, are routinely censored, altered or manipulated for political purposes.
"The Bush administration obsession with controlling the flow of information means that factual information that does not serve its political agenda rarely sees the light of day," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch who testified today. "Public servants who wish to speak honestly about matters outside officially approved agency talking points are required to cast a profile in courage because their honesty could cost them their jobs."
Ruch appeared today before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs of the House Committee on Government Reform in a hearing entitled "Improving Information Quality in the Federal Government."
The other listed witnesses were Kim Wilson, the assistant administrator for the information office of the Environmental Protection Agency, and William Kovacs, an official with the Chamber of Commerce.
The PEER testimony outlines a pervasive effort to edit out vital but discordant information across the range of environmental activities:
Science: PEER and the Union of Concerned Scientists have conducted surveys among federal scientists showing a high degree of political intervention to amend scientific findings;
Land Management: Federal agencies are routinely issuing documents that do not withstand judicial scrutiny because the documents are at variance with the agency's own internal data; and Public Health" Whistleblowers lack meaningful protections so that professionals who raise concerns are banished or terminated as a result.
A major problem cited by PEER is that Congress extends no meaningful legal protections for executive branch employees who communicate information to oversight committees or individual members. As a consequence, official reports to Congress are often inaccurate, incomplete or untimely.
"If agencies can lie with impunity to Congress, why should they be expected to tell anyone else the truth?" Ruch asked, calling for Congress to put teeth into laws forbidding interference with or retaliation for transmitting information to elected representatives. "Right now, the federal civil service is scared to death."