• 60% believe NOAA Fisheries is moving in the wrong direction.

• 47% said the Fisheries Service routinely fails to make “determinations using scientific judgment” due to political pressure.

• 56% reported Fisheries Service upper-management will not stand behind them if their scientific position is politically controversial.

• 55% stated they lack appropriate resources to do their job for the Fisheries Service.

• 54% suggest the Fisheries Service is not acting effectively to protect depleted commercial fish species.

• While 13% reported knowledge of environmental groups influencing decisions, commercial interests seem to outrank them with a reported 53% stating they knew of cases where their influence has led to reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions.

Michael Kelly, a veteran of both the Fish & Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries Service isn’t surprised by the results of the survey. Kelly resigned a year ago from his position as fisheries biologist at the NOAA Fisheries Service once he felt his scientific expertise was being ignored for political reasons. Charged with finding ways to restore California’s salmon runs — a valuable commercial fishery for many tribal and small-scale fishing communities — Kelly had seen his scientific work on the issue undermined once already when at Fish & Wildlife. While agri-business seemed to have provided the political muscle for undermining Kelly’s work at Fish & Wildlife, at NOAA Fisheries duck hunters seemed to be the ones willing to sacrifice the salmon for their hobby.

“Politics is trumping science in these agencies,” said Kelly who has found other ways to see his scientific work put to use since leaving the Fisheries Service in May 2004. “My first few years [at Fish & Wildlife] went pretty smoothly, but the last five years were more of a fight to do what is needed, more difficult to have science answer questions.”

Shultz also points to statements released by over 6,000 scientists . . . all calling for an end to what they see as unprecedented manipulation of scientific processes in various government agencies for political reasons. Photo: Fishermen's Voice.

Nearly two years before his resignation, Kelly blew the whistle on the agency when the Fisheries Service decided to ignore his scientific advice in a Biological Opinion for salmon recovery. Using the Whistleblower Protection Act and with the help of the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a non-profit agency representing government whistleblowers and a partner in the UCS survey, he went public with his belief that salmon recovery was being compromised so California’s industrial agri-business could get more water.

“I was given the task of determining what the fish needed and worked hard to figure out the science, but [the agency] came up with another plan which killed 60,000 fish the very next year,” said Kelly who believes presidential advisor Karl Rove influenced the decision to buy political favors for the Republican Party that was facing a tough re-election in Oregon.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Republicans wanted to divert water to farmlands in the hopes of gaining agriculture’s support during the elections. Kelly believes Rove’s influence had something to do with the opening of the Klamath Falls irrigation gates shortly after he and President George Bush visited the stumping grounds of Republican Senator Gordon Smith in January 2002.

In his letter of resignation, Kelly states “in October 2002, I believed, both personally and professionally that our agency had violated the law during the Klamath River [Endangered Species Act] section 7 consultation… the threatened Coho salmon in the Klamath basin still do not have adequate flow conditions to assure their survival.” In July 2003 a federal judge agreed with Kelly’s assessment that Endangered Species Act rules were violated in this case.

A July 2005 audit by the inspector general of the Department of Commerce questions the water diversion system as well as the process used to undermine Kelly’s original Biological Opinion. The audit was requested by Congressman George Miller (D-CA) and 18 other members of Congress after the controversy over the Biological Opinion made it outside the walls of NOAA Fisheries.

“The report provides more evidence of the administration using politics, not science, to guide the most delicate decisions when powerful special interests are involved, despite the administration’s own declaration that science would guide their decisions on energy and environmental policy,” said Congressman Miller in a July 13, 2005 press release.

Kelly isn’t alone.

Another NOAA Fisheries biologist, from the same region with 15 years combined service experience at both the Fish & Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries Service, speaking to Fishermen’s Voice on the condition of anonymity said, “Political pressure has always been there, but has been more pervasive and obvious in recent years.”

The source goes on to say that “if you give [the managers] a conclusion other than what they want, you are labeled as an activist, minimalized in regards to projects you are given, and they make sure biologists who believe in the integrity of the process are marginalized because they [the managers] want a different answer.” Often fear of such retaliation keeps people from speaking up, says the source, but doesn’t keep them from doing the job that the source admits he or she still loves. Otherwise, “I wouldn’t still be here trying, although it’s getting harder and harder to live that dream.”

Retaliation is one of the issues PEER and UCS are concerned about.

According to PEER, Fish & Wildlife fired Andrew Eller, a 17-year veteran of the service, in November 2004 because he “publicly challenged the service’s reliance on flawed studies.” His firing came shortly after the agency acknowledged Eller, a panther expert working on the recovery of Florida’s famous endangered feline, was right to accuse the agency of using flawed science to undermine the animal’s recovery. Eller’s supporters allege the agency was bowing to political pressure from developers wanting to build on the panther’s habitat.

In an impassioned plea in support of Eller, a group of his colleagues wrote an anonymous memo in March 2005, released through PEER, further implicating the agency in undermining science with politics. They state: “we feel that it is not safe to speak out individually because we do not want to be discriminated against or be penalized for speaking the truth, having high ethical standards, upholding the law, and making known the injustices that have occurred and continue to occur within the service.”

The letter ends by demanding that “the atmosphere where government employees are afraid to use science, question management, and do their jobs must end.”

Eller and Kelly’s stories are examples of how various government agencies might be manipulating scientific research to fulfill political favors at an unprecedented rate, says Lexi Shultz Washington, D.C. representative for UCS’s Restoring Scientific Integrity project.

According to UCS, undermining science isn’t limited to agencies dealing with fish and wildlife. The organization lists a slew of what it considers to be abuses of science in government agencies on a range of issues including air pollution, HIV/AIDS education, airborne bacteria, breast cancer, mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia, effects of climate change, drug approval and safety, mercury emissions, and forest management.

Recognizing the problem, the National Academy of Sciences released a report on November 17, 2004 outlining ways to strengthen scientific integrity by ensuring proper appointments to scientific bodies and credentialed scientists to advise the president, among other things.

Shultz also points to statements released by over 6,000 scientists including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 135 members of the National Academy of Sciences — all calling for an end to what they see as unprecedented manipulation of scientific processes in various government agencies for political reasons.

Legislation has been introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to stop this erosion of as well as bolster scientific integrity in government agencies.

Introduced by Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Bart Gordon (D-TN), the Restore Scientific Integrity to Federal Research and Policy Making Act (H.R. 839) is waiting its turn in the House. The companion bill, S. 1358, was only recently introduced by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL). If passed, the legislation would require, amongst other provisions, an annual report to Congress on the state of the nation’s scientific integrity, help prevent data manipulation, strengthen the Whistleblower Protection Act, prevent political litmus tests, and improve scientific transparency.

On June 24, an amendment introduced by Representative Waxman passed, preventing the Department of Health and Human Services from using political litmus tests to determine scientists’ eligibility for participating in federal advisory committees.

“When science is abused everyone pays — in the case of the NOAA Fisheries Service scientists, fish and the people who depend on fish for livelihood and recreation end up paying the ultimate price. We came up with the idea of the surveys after hearing allegations of abuse and misrepresentation of science,” said Shultz. “We wanted to get a handle on how widespread this was and how it could be affecting the government agencies to do their job, their morale, and, ultimately the agencies’ overall mission. Unfortunately, we discovered that in the case of both the Fish & Wildlife and NOAA Fisheries that political interference is pervasive.”

NOAA Strikes Back
News of the survey seems to have touched a nerve at NOAA Fisheries Service headquarters.

In an interview with Fishermen’s Voice, NOAA Fisheries Director William Hogarth said he’s taking the results very personally “because I’ve tried to be transparent.” He pointed to many mechanisms in place for NOAA staff to provide input, including internal surveys, weekly meetings with top level management, annual meetings with staff and his general open-door policy within the agency.

NOAA’s Survey Feedback Action mentioned by Hogarth was last conducted in 2002 and appears to be more about overall workplace satisfaction and personnel matters rather than scientific integrity.

More recently, Hogarth said he has been hearing from his staff after two e-mails from him raising concerns about the UCS/PEER survey results. The e-mails, one on June 30, the other July 7, were leaked to PEER. Hogarth said he will not ignore the survey results or the feedback he has since received from his staff and will work to address the issues raised.

Hogarth’s e-mails reiterate what he told Fishermen’s Voice, “I can tell you that I’ve never been asked or told anyone to change science for any reasons. I’ve stressed since being here [at NOAA] that all our decisions are based on science. All our science is peer-reviewed. Not a single decision goes forward without others looking at it, including general council.”

Still, Hogarth admits recommendations are often altered and changed when they go up the agency’s chain of command. An example, said Hogarth, is the agency has to take into consideration all ten national standards within the Magnuson/Fishery Conservation and Management Act in the case of fisheries rebuilding plans.

He compares this process to his experience at the Carolina Power & Light, where he worked for 16 years prior to coming to NOAA. He made many recommendations which were changed or altered as they went up the chain of command in order to address multiple issues.

Michael Kelly, on the other hand, believes Hogarth’s explanation is part of the problem.

“On one hand Dr. Hogarth is saying he’s confident that politics don’t play a part [in undermining scientific advice] but then goes on to explain how politics does. I think they’re more cautious about their political base than the species at risk,” says Kelly. “Science is supposed to be the first and foremost criteria. The final decision should make sense in light of the science. There needs to be an appropriate amount of caution used in their decisions but often uncertainty is misused as a way to undermine science.”

Hogarth’s other concern with the UCS/PEER survey is that, in his opinion, it wasn’t representative of the scientific staff working in the field and instead represents mostly middle-managers who may not be familiar with all the nuances involved in making a final decision. He blames this on internal communications issues and lack of training which leads to staff not understanding their mandates.

“This argument fails to show that scientific decisions at the agency are safe from inappropriate influences and criticizes highly trained professional staff in the process,” said PEER Program Director Rebecca Roose. “These are individuals who know exactly how decisions are made and know when they see science being manipulated or abused.”

Roose went on to say that their survey was “simply the voices of 124 NOAA employees which otherwise may never have been heard due to the scientists’ fear of retaliation at the office. Mike Kelly is a great example of how you don’t have to go to the labs to find out scientific work is being compromised at NOAA Fisheries.”

Fishermen’s Voice’s anonymous fisheries biologist agrees, saying all 25 employees in his or her office received the survey. “The survey went exactly to the right people. We are the ones who have to take the scientific work done in the field and write up the Biological Opinions or other policy documents.” The source believes the only way NOAA Fisheries can deflect the slew of lawsuits the agency complains are plaguing it’s time is to ensure decisions are based on science, not politics.

The NOAA biologist said “The survey was probably very accurate. It was sent to the right people. We are the ones who are actually implementing the scientific findings and are most likely to be influenced by policy. Even if only a small percentage responded, of those who did, the majority responded negatively. Coupled with the inspector general’s report, what it tells us is that something inappropriate is going on in regard to how decisions are being made. Clearly political pressure is being put on biologists doing their work. I’ve felt it. I’ve lived it.”