Scientists claim censorship by federal agency
GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) - Seven federal fisheries scientists filed a complaint Monday claiming their supervisor censored their research into the water needs of threatened Klamath Basin salmon because it was viewed by others as biased, violating an Obama administration policy prohibiting political manipulation of science by the federal government.
The whistleblower protection organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility said it filed the complaint with the U.S. Department of Interior Office of the Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs on behalf of seven fisheries scientists at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation office in Klamath Falls.
"Requiring that science be non-controversial is like ordering your omelet made with uncracked eggs," PEER executive director Jeff Ruch said in a statement. "Scientific differences are supposed to be addressed through consultation, not suppressed by bullying and threats."
The Klamath Basin has long been locked in an intense political struggle over sharing scarce water between threatened and endangered fish and a federal irrigation project. A drought in 2001 forced the bureau to shut off most water for the Klamath Reclamation Project, which straddles the Oregon-California border south of Klamath Falls, to preserve water for threatened coho salmon in the Klamath River and endangered suckers in the project's main reservoir.
The complaint alleges Klamath Basin Area Office Manager Jason Phillips took steps to transfer the seven scientists and assign their work to the U.S. Geological Survey, because he felt that other agencies and interested parties in the Klamath Basin viewed their research as inherently biased in favor of the bureau, "producing scientific work only to prove other agencies wrong."
"Our fear is that professionalism has become hazardous to our careers inside Reclamation," Keith Schultz, one of the seven scientists, said in a statement. "We hope this complaint will make a difference in allowing other scientists to come forward and be truthful about science."
Phillips issued a statement saying the Klamath Area Office frequently reviews operations to make the best use of resources, and the proposed change concerning the fisheries scientists met that goal. He said no one will lose their job.
The complaint says Phillips noted the NOAA Fisheries Service, which oversees protection of salmon, raised concerns over a life-cycle model the scientists produced on the coho salmon, a threatened species. NOAA Fisheries has set minimum flows, controlled by the bureau, down the Klamath River to protect the coho. The life-cycle model suggested that flows in the Klamath River were less important than flows in tributaries, which are not controlled by the bureau. The complaint says the model was never published.
The scientists also produced research showing a stable population of endangered suckers in Lake Ewauna, previously considered a dead zone, the complaint said, forcing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to re-evaluate its strategy for saving the suckers from extinction.
"It appears clear that Mr. Phillips and those other officials involved in his threats are reacting to the political interagency 'problems' associated with the scientific work of the Fisheries Resources Branch - not the quality, integrity or value of that scientific work," the complaint said. "This type of coercive and obstructive activity cuts to the core of the very reason for the (Department of Interior) Scientific Integrity policies."
The Obama administration adopted the policy prohibiting political manipulation of science following findings that during the Bush administration, politics influenced the application of science in endangered species management.
The whistleblower protection organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility said it filed the complaint with the U.S. Department of Interior Office of the Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs on behalf of seven fisheries scientists at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation office in Klamath Falls.
"Requiring that science be non-controversial is like ordering your omelet made with uncracked eggs," PEER executive director Jeff Ruch said in a statement. "Scientific differences are supposed to be addressed through consultation, not suppressed by bullying and threats."
The Klamath Basin has long been locked in an intense political struggle over sharing scarce water between threatened and endangered fish and a federal irrigation project. A drought in 2001 forced the bureau to shut off most water for the Klamath Reclamation Project, which straddles the Oregon-California border south of Klamath Falls, to preserve water for threatened coho salmon in the Klamath River and endangered suckers in the project's main reservoir.
The complaint alleges Klamath Basin Area Office Manager Jason Phillips took steps to transfer the seven scientists and assign their work to the U.S. Geological Survey, because he felt that other agencies and interested parties in the Klamath Basin viewed their research as inherently biased in favor of the bureau, "producing scientific work only to prove other agencies wrong."
"Our fear is that professionalism has become hazardous to our careers inside Reclamation," Keith Schultz, one of the seven scientists, said in a statement. "We hope this complaint will make a difference in allowing other scientists to come forward and be truthful about science."
Phillips issued a statement saying the Klamath Area Office frequently reviews operations to make the best use of resources, and the proposed change concerning the fisheries scientists met that goal. He said no one will lose their job.
The complaint says Phillips noted the NOAA Fisheries Service, which oversees protection of salmon, raised concerns over a life-cycle model the scientists produced on the coho salmon, a threatened species. NOAA Fisheries has set minimum flows, controlled by the bureau, down the Klamath River to protect the coho. The life-cycle model suggested that flows in the Klamath River were less important than flows in tributaries, which are not controlled by the bureau. The complaint says the model was never published.
The scientists also produced research showing a stable population of endangered suckers in Lake Ewauna, previously considered a dead zone, the complaint said, forcing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to re-evaluate its strategy for saving the suckers from extinction.
"It appears clear that Mr. Phillips and those other officials involved in his threats are reacting to the political interagency 'problems' associated with the scientific work of the Fisheries Resources Branch - not the quality, integrity or value of that scientific work," the complaint said. "This type of coercive and obstructive activity cuts to the core of the very reason for the (Department of Interior) Scientific Integrity policies."
The Obama administration adopted the policy prohibiting political manipulation of science following findings that during the Bush administration, politics influenced the application of science in endangered species management.
"The Obama administration adopted the policy prohibiting political manipulation of science following findings that during the Bush administration, politics influenced the application of science in endangered species management."
Â
Once again...just because a policy is in place doesn't stop people from doing what they do.
Great, just great, and this cost the tax payers how much? Get a team in there and blow the damn dam. And say , it was an accident..or that it posed a severe thereat to life and property and had to be removed...what is the government going to do? Rebuild it ?
(giggle)
Anyone who thinks the government DOESN'T censor things needs to have their head examined. Free speech and free press is a myth.
 @MikeyÂ
Â
I disagree.
Â
These are government employees working on the taxpayer dime.
Â
Saying the government is undermining free speech is like you spending your day railing against the company you work for while on the clock.
Â
Indeed if free speech were the issue here, we would not have heard about this. And if the press was not free then we STILL would not have hear about this.
Â
What you're mixing is the idea of free speech and the right to determine the course of your employee's work. If you work in the press, your bosses job is to make money. The fact you report the news is merely the mechanism you are using for the purposes of profit.
Â
In this instance it was an agency whose job it is to decide what resources go where. The issue isn't about speech, but about what is politically expedient.
Â
Â
Unfortunately, science has become the lap dog of whoever holds the purse strings. Sign me up for some of that man-made global warming money.
I suppose that since taxpayers are funding most scientific studies, we should have a say in what they study. Â We don't, and we also do not have a say in how much funding they get. Â We all should question most of these studies, especially when they involve billions of dollars going to special interest groups. Â An excellent example is global warming or climate change. Â Most of the money is going to those who preach doom and gloom, very little, if any, to those who are saying "wait a minute, it's not that dire".
Interesting category that KATU placed this story in: Politics. Is there any question that science now has to follow political agendas? Even the media believes it does!
 @jpkÂ
Even 0bama believes that science is more politics than science or he wouldn't have made a "..policy prohibiting political manipulation of science by the federal government."
Â
Criminals ignore laws and I am confident that a federal employees will ignore really minor policies.
 @RalphCramden  @jpkÂ
Â
I read this differently.
Â
The way I see it he believes that science is NOT politics and as such the two should not intertwine.
Â
I.e. you might or might not use science for your politics, but you should not use your politics for your science.
Â
I think when you begin to muddy the puddle between politics and science you get the same issues when you mix science and religion. Some even argue about politics and religion but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
Â
In any case I see it opposite of the way you see it. The only similarity between the two is that debate and opposing ideas are not controversial (or at least should not be considered such).
Â
But you're right in that criminals will ignore laws and criminals exist in all walks of life even public service.
Â
Â
The scientists created a data model that analyzed life cycle patterns of salmon and were told not to do it because it basically would make the government pay more for protection when they are having wholesale funding problems.
Only the administration can produce biased political manipulation of facts! Science nowadays must be politically correct or at least in line with the political regime in power. Science has to be whatever the government agencies want it to be. Whatever happened to free speech? Â
 @jpk Reefer Madness?