Group: USDA Scientists Coerced

OMAHA (DTN) -- USDA needs to strengthen its internal rules to better protect the department's scientists from outside political and industry pressures over their research, a group alleges in a petition to the department being filed on Thursday.

The group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, charges that USDA scientists "routinely suffer retaliation and harassment" from managers and private industry for research that conflicts with agribusinesses.

"It's one of the worst agencies in terms of direct industry influence in how scientists are handled," said Jeff Ruch, executive director of PEER, in describing USDA's protection of scientists. "There's not much of a political buffer between big agribusinesses and managers at the agency. In our work, we've found that scientists in the agency that are producing studies that are drawing industry concerns find their careers complicated."

Such allegations are a serious attack against a department that declares: "Each day, the work of USDA scientists and researchers touches the lives of all Americans -- from the farm field to the kitchen table and from the air we breathe to the energy that powers our country."

USDA employs thousands of scientists involved in a broad array of work on plant production, livestock, food safety and the environment. The department prides itself on being one of the world's premier research institutions and has a vested interest in ensuring the credibility of its scientists. Thus, such allegations challenge the department's scientific integrity.

PEER is filing a petition to force USDA to beef up its policies on scientific integrity. The petition seeks to get USDA to adopt some of the best practices for scientific integrity used by other federal agencies to protect scientists from having their work suppressed or altered.

DTN received a copy of PEER's petition prior to the group filing it with the department. DTN has contacted USDA for comment, but as of yet has not received an official response.

A petition to a department is largely a glorified letter under the Administrative Procedures Act detailing reasons why a federal agency should draft new rules. If USDA doesn't respond, PEER could sue the department over the lack of response and action.

Ruch said while scientific integrity policies have been weakened at other agencies as well, this is the first time PEER has taken a federal department to task through a petition process.

Scientific integrity policies were updated after President Barack Obama, when he took office in 2009, directed department heads to create policies preventing the political manipulation of science. USDA released such a policy in 2011 and updated it in 2013.

PEER maintains "suppression and alteration of scientific work for political reasons remain common at USDA. In addition, scientists whose work carries with it policy implications which negatively reflect upon USDA corporate stakeholder interests routinely suffer retaliation and harassment."

PEER stated the group has received reports in recent months of USDA scientists who have been directed not to publish data on certain topics considered sensitive to industry. Scientists have been asked to retract papers or remove their name from the authorship. PEER's petition also makes some anonymous, uncorroborated charges without specifics regarding reprimands or pressure against USDA scientists.

USDA also lacks a policy to handle complaints about scientific integrity, PEER said, nor is there a policy to protect whistleblowers who make such complaints.

Whistleblower issues are different for scientists because in most cases they would not be reporting waste or fraud or dangers to public health. Instead, scientists may want to expose attempts to block data or studies that political appointees or private industry may not like.

Michael Halpern, a program manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists, examines policies for open access at federal agencies. Some federal agencies have aggressively embraced scientific integrity policies and made a cultural change in the way they handle scientists and their research.

Halpern said he did not have enough knowledge to assess the practices at USDA, but the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report earlier this year looking at media policies for scientists at 17 federal agencies. The group gave USDA low scores, mainly because of the vagueness of USDA's policies, inconsistencies over the role of the communications staff in editing scientific papers and the lack of a "personal views" exception that affords scientists more opportunity to talk about specific issues.

Halpern also noted the department has always been unique because of USDA's dual role and "conflicted mandate" of promoting agriculture while also regulating the industry, he said.

"That can create some unique challenges when science that serves the public interest may be inconvenient to private interests or undermine industry practices," Halpern said.

Halpern said the USDA policy updated in 2013 has good language and intentions, but "the policy itself still doesn't have teeth."

Some federal departments, such as the Department of Interior, provide specific summaries about scientific misconduct. USDA's policy only states the department should provide aggregate data annually. USDA also doesn't post misconduct cases on its website.

"That opens up giant holes for science that is politically convenient to be suppressed or distorted in some way," Halpern said.

Chris Clayton can be reached at Chris.Clayton@dtn.com

Follow him on Twitter @ChrisClaytonDTN

(AG/CZ)

Copyright 2015 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.