Hundreds of scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have reported political interference in their work, according to a report released on April 23 by the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Interference at the EPA: Science and Politics at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” draws from the anonymous responses of 1,586 EPA scientists, 889 (56 percent) of whom “personally experienced at least one incident of inappropriate interference in their work over the past five years.” The replies are not a random sample: UCS sent out surveys to almost 5,500 scientists, and the 29 percent who replied are likely to be the most outspoken, with the most grievances against the administration. But, as Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program for the UCS, says, “nearly 900 EPA scientists reported political interference in their scientific work. That’s 900 too many.”
Below are a few figures about the respondents:
76 percent held either a master’s or a doctoral degree, 65 percent were “veterans”—meaning that they hadmore than ten years’ experience at the EPA—and 83 percent were high-level government employees at General Service levels 13 through 15. 37 respondents were employees in the Senior Executive Service, which means that they served in positions just below the top presidential appointees.
And a few figures about the survey’s results:
43 percent of EPA veterans said that political interference occurred more frequently within the past five years than it did in the previous five years.
22 percent had personally experienced “selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome.”
13 percent had personally experienced “pressure to ignore impacts of a regulation on sensitive populations.”
42 percent knew of “many or some” cases where “commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of EPA scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention.
51 percent said that EPA policies did not allow scientists to “speak freely to the news media about their findings.”
Nearly 100 scientists named the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the main culprit, accusing it of trying to tamper with EPA regulations concerning formaldehyde, particulate matter and ozone air pollution beyond its boundaries. According to a number of respondents, the OMB not only attempted to downplay the risks of various chemicals or substances, but also tried to dictate the way the EPA conducts risk assessment and peer review.
In response to the report’s release, Californian Democratic Representative Henry A. Waxman has written to Stephen L. Johnson, the EPA’s administrator, requesting him to prepare to respond at a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in May.
Amidst controversies such as the state of California suing the EPA for denying its waiver to enact policies reducing vehicle emissions, it’s not news to anybody that politicians have “input” into the actions of the EPA, or, for that matter, any federal agency whose findings may compromise their interests. Whether it’s omitting crucial research, delaying the release of a climate change-related website or censoring scientists, the White House has long been subject to allegations of meddling where it doesn’t quite belong. The Bush administration isn’t the only offender here, as Clinton’s was guilty of it too, although perhaps to a lesser degree.
Nevertheless, it’s heartening to see such this report receive such attention, both from the media and from Congress, because it’s been long overdue. While similar calls to action have surfaced in the past, here’s hoping this one will result in some overhaul. Such reports are exactly what we need to get the federal government moving forward on some energy policies that won’t be completely toothless.
So let’s hope for the best that the UCS’s recommendations—the passing of a whistleblower law, protection for scientists disclosing their work and EPA transparency—will come to pass.
