FROM THE CROWE'S NEST

Soviet Gulag Science

It’s not enough that we have the federal government ramming fishing regulation after fishing regulation down out throats based on what they consider good science and environmental groups trying to shut down every fishery except goldfish. Now we have the recent survey of fishery scientists and managers who work for NOAA suggesting that the scientific reports they have been submitting are being altered for the sake of political favoritism. It is enough to make you choke.

When the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) sent out the survey and the agencies involved gave explicit orders not to answer the survey it only makes one question the validity of their methodology even more. What do they have to hide? The UCS is not a group of hackers; they are highly qualified, legitimate scientists.

Fifty-eight percent of the survey respondents knew of cases where high-level U. S. Department of Commerce administrators or appointees had “inappropriately” altered decisions. Forty-seven percent said the fisheries service routinely fails to make “determinations using scientific judgment” due to political pressure. These numbers suggest that there is more than a minor problem that exists within these agencies on utilizing accurate science. It borders on nothing less than fraud.

Sixty thousand wild salmon were killed because a veteran biologist’s recommendations were ignored when an industrial agri-business needed facts skewed to get more water. The decision was made not based on science but on political strategies to garner votes. That is nothing less than ecological terrorism and those responsible should be brought to trial.
  
When you have Nobel Laureates, National Medal of Science recipients and members of the National Academy of Scientists calling for an end to “unprecedented manipulation of scientific processes for political reasons”, it is time to question the validity of those in charge. Those who speak out are sent to the workplace gulag. There is no excuse for allowing this travesty of justice to continue especially when we are paying for it.
   
The head of NOAA Fisheries admits that recommendations are often altered and changed when they go up the chain of command. Why are we paying for decision makers when their decisions are ignored? Better yet why are we paying millions of dollars to people who are not even qualified to make these changes? Campaign contributions and political favors cannot be the foundation for the scientific management of our resources. The people cannot support a system of government supervision modeled on Soviet gulag science.