No Fish Left Behind

We live in a bizarre country in a bizarre time. It’s a time when science is discounted by millions because it doesn’t square with religious beliefs (something I’d thought incorrectly that we’d left behind a long, long time ago).

We live in a time when the government thinks it’s a-ok to distort scientific studies for political ends and few seem to care.

Anyway, now it’s happening at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration where PEER Media reports, “…agency science is suffering under political manipulation and inappropriate influence of special interests.” According to a just released survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), that agency is being hampered in carrying out its charge to protect fish, seal and whale populations from extinction.

"Scientists are struggling against a strong political current at NOAA Fisheries," said UCS Washington Representative Lexi Shultz. "From global warming to fish and wildlife, we’ve seen that the Bush administration has little regard for scientific findings that don’t support its predetermined policies. And compromised science here can only be bad for fish, bad for fishing interests, and bad for the taxpayers who pay for and expect an honest process.”

The survey of nearly 500 NOAA Fisheries scientists in offices all across the country found:

• More than one third of respondents positioned to make such recommendations (37 percent) have “been directed, for non-scientific reasons, to refrain from making findings that are protective” of marine life and nearly one in four (24 percent) of those conducting such work reported being “directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from a NOAA Fisheries scientific document;”

• More than half of all respondents (53 percent) knew of cases where “commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention;” and

• More than half of the scientists (58 percent) knew of cases “where high-level U.S. Department of Commerce administrators and appointees have inappropriately altered NOAA Fisheries determinations.” A substantial minority (42 percent) also cited incidents where members of Congress “inappropriately influenced NOAA Fisheries determinations.”

• Nearly two in three (64 percent) did not agree that the agency was effectively protecting populations and habitats of federally listed species, and more than two in three (69 percent) also doubted the agency could effectively aid in recovering threatened and endangered species;

• More than two-thirds of agency scientists (69 percent) did not “trust NOAA Fisheries decision makers to make decisions that will protect marine resources and ecosystems.”

• Two out of five (40 percent) said they could not openly express “concerns about the biological needs of species and habitats without fear of retaliation” in public, while more than a quarter (29 percent) did not feel they could do so even inside the confines of the agency;

• Almost a third (31 percent) felt they are not allowed to do their jobs as scientists; and

• A significant minority (18 percent) of scientists reported having “been directed by NOAA Fisheries decision makers to provide incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information to the public, media or elected officials.”

• More than four in five (81 percent) thought that NOAA Fisheries lacked sufficient resources “to adequately perform its environmental mission;”

• Three out of five scientists (60 percent) did not feel the agency “is moving in the right direction. This is consistent with a response from 46 percent that job satisfaction has decreased over the past few years, compared with half as many (23 percent) who reported an increase in job satisfaction; and

• More than two out of five (42 percent) scientists described morale as poor or extremely poor and more than half (56 percent) do not feel that “upper-management will stand behind” an employee with a scientifically solid, yet politically controversial position.

The scientists were also asked to submit essays on how to improve scientific integrity at the agency. The response was also eye opening.

One biologist wrote, “It seems that we are encouraged to think too much about the consequences and how to get around them, rather than just basing our recommendations on the best available data.”

Another said, “ . . . it is not uncommon to be directed to not communicate debates in writing. I have also seen written documents that include internal discussions/debate purposefully omitted from administrative records with no valid reasoning.”

“The Bush administration seems to have a ‘No Fish Left Behind’ policy,” said PEER Program Director Rebecca Roose, who recruited current and former NOAA employees to develop the questionnaire. “These scientists are trying to serve the public and fulfill the agency mission to protect fisheries and marine animals, but they feel the science is being undermined at every turn, directly through manipulation and indirectly through cuts to scientific resources.”

But it ain’t just fish that have to worry.

A couple of months ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists released the results of another survey. This one concerned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. According to the High Country News, that survey found that: 44 percent of those questioned said they have been told, "...for non-scientific reasons," to refrain from making findings that actually protect endangered or threatened species. Eighty-nine percent of managers knew of cases where U.S. Department of the Interior political appointees "have injected themselves" into scientific determinations; 69 percent of scientists say the Service is not effective in its recovery of protected species; and 32 percent say "they are not allowed to do their jobs as scientists."

By the way, in case you were worried about Philip Cooney, the guy who altered the global warming report, he managed to find himself a good job with Exxon Mobil. Deputy spokeswoman for the White House, Dana Perino commented, "Phil Cooney did a great job and we appreciate his public service and the work that he did, and we wish him well in the private sector." Sources: High Country News, NOAA Fisheries Service, ENS, FryingPanTower.com, PEER Media, Union of Concerned Scientists