EPA scientists win a round in fight for integrity

But the battle is far from over

The press release that came across my desk last week should have been satire. It announced the news that “political interference with science” will now be considered a no-no at the Environmental Protection Agency. Among concessions granted by the agency, EPA scientists will finally be “free to openly discuss their scientific work with the press and at scientific conferences.” (WOW! What a great idea!)

Those of us who don’t live in the alternate universe of our nation’s capital know and expect that scientific integrity should be a bedrock principle at a federal agency as important as the EPA, rather than a bargaining chip in labor negotiations.

We would assume that government scientists whose paychecks come from us, the public, would already be allowed to publicly discuss their work. But this news release was no joke; it was a reflection on the sorry state of EPA science we’ve all suffered for years.

Read the press release here

For far too long, the EPA has been plagued with rampant scientific meddling as politically motivated managers have repeatedly stifled and manipulated research findings by agency staff in ways that benefit powerful corporations selling dangerous products. The corruption has been bipartisan, persisting through presidential administrations of both parties over decades.

President Barack Obama in 2009 issued a memo stating the obvious: “The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions.  Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions.” Obama charged his administration with implementing new measures that would guarantee scientific integrity in federal agencies.

Obama’s effort failed miserably, as a group of EPA whistleblowers made clear when they came forward in 2021 with evidence of deep corruption. The Intercept explained:

“Managers and career staff in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention tampered with the assessments of dozens of chemicals to make them appear safer, according to four scientists who work at the agency. The whistleblowers, whose jobs involve identifying the potential harms posed by new chemicals, provided The Intercept with detailed evidence of pressure within the agency to minimize or remove evidence of potential adverse effects of the chemicals, including neurological effects, birth defects, and cancer.

On several occasions, information about hazards was deleted from agency assessments without informing or seeking the consent of the scientists who authored them. Some of these cases led the EPA to withhold critical information from the public about potentially dangerous chemical exposures.”

The four were not the only insiders to detail EPA corruption. The Intercept ran not just one story on EPA corruption, but a whole 10-part series. Indeed, since the 1980s, many have come forward detailing efforts to keep the truth about harmful chemicals and other pollutants from the public. Scientists have described intimidation tactics that include threats of demotion of termination, and ongoing harassment from supervisors when they don’t toe the line.

The new agreement specifically addresses those tactics, stating that “employees who make good faith reports… shall not be subject to retribution, reprisal, or retaliation by the Agency.”

The deal allowing scientists to actually do science at the EPA, negotiated by the American Federation of Government Employees, is believed to be the first of its kind, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The agreement is supposed to take effect later this month, allowing disputes over scientific integrity to be heard by the Federal Labor Relations Authority.

The deal does not cover no-union EPA employees and is only good for four years, PEER noted.

The corruption of EPA science has been extremely beneficial to a number of powerful industries for a very long time. Companies such as Monsanto/Bayer and Syngenta, currently embroiled in nationwide litigation over links between their pesticide products and diseases, repeatedly cite EPA “science” to defend their products in court and keep them on the market.

There are stacks of documents that detail the cozy connections between industry and the agency, and numerous loopholes in law that allow for those connections to stay tightly tied, including a revolving door between industry and agency that enriches those who play the game.

And EPA leadership doesn’t seem ready to stop playing.

Last month, I attended a symposium in Washington, DC where Michal Ilana Freedhoff, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, was the keynote speaker.

Freedhoff spent much of her time giving audience members an overview of the federal laws that provide the framework for the EPA’s work, and patting herself and other EPA leaders on the back for their dedication to the public good. Shortcomings in the timely and effective regulation of dangerous substances are due to “constraints” in the laws, not in agency integrity, she told the crowd.

She briefly acknowledged that “sometimes the political leadership in the agency” has not “seemed” to fully embrace agency ideals, but Freedhoff said no one should dare to question the integrity of the science coming out of EPA. She likened criticizing EPA science to spreading misinformation about Covid.

“Think about the Covid conspiracy theories that say the vaccines are putting microchips in peoples bodies and are responsible for thousands of deaths,” she said.

“Diseases like measles and whooping cough are making a resurgence in this country because of the scientific disinformation about vaccines that started to spiral out of control during the pandemic,” Freedhoff continued. “If you think it’s wrong to accuse climate or vaccine scientists of deliberately trying to harm people or distorting the truth, you should also think it is wrong to describe EPA science as being industry friendly or accuse EPA scientists of willfully ignoring or distorting the data.”

If the key to fixing a problem is first acknowledging there is a problem, Freedhoff’s comments indicate that achieving actual integrity within the agency is likely to be an uphill climb.

Still, the news of the labor agreement is a much-needed step that deserves praise.