A survey on scientific integrity in the US government was marked as

first_img Originally published by E&E News.A periodic survey of U.S. federal scientists by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) caused a bit of a kerfuffle at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last month.For the ninth time since 2005, the science advocacy group sent out a survey to more than 63,000 federal scientists across 16 agencies to gather information about what’s happening inside the federal government in relation to scientific integrity. A survey on scientific integrity in the U.S. government was marked as spam. It wasn’t Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS, said his staff reached out to the agencies to let them know the survey was forthcoming: a memo EPA apparently missed.”The unannounced, unauthorized, and perhaps illegal message found below this message was sent to me today,” Brian Melzian, an EPA oceanographer in Rhode Island, wrote in a 12 February email to EPA’s Computer Security Incident Response Center (CSIRC) and others obtained by UCS.”Because the U.S. EPA employees have NOT received any information about this ‘Study,’ this study may NOT be legitimate, legal, and proper for EPA employees to complete,” he wrote.Melzian continued: “Finally, if the message found below is legitimate and not bogus, these organizations have been grossly negligent and incompetent for distributing this message without first being authorized and approved by EPA.”Rosenberg said while UCS did inform EPA the survey was coming, he is not required to do so and it’s up to the agencies to choose whether and how they inform employees about it.The survey comes at a particularly sensitive time as climate and other science advocates worry the Trump administration has politicized and delegitimized scientific inquiry (Climatewire, 9 August 2017). By Arianna Skibell, E&E NewsMar. 10, 2018 , 7:35 AM Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country I worry there is some degree of intimidation going on there that’s keeping them from filling it out. Joel Clement, Union of Concerned Scientists Survey still openWhile the survey will remain open for another couple of weeks, the response rate so far has been low—a fact Rosenberg attributes to fear of retaliation.”It suggests the climate and culture for scientists is really fearful,” he said. “The culture we’ve seen more broadly in this administration has been either dismissal or hostility toward science.”A spokesman for EPA said it didn’t make sense to him that employees would be afraid to fill out the survey since it is anonymous but declined to comment further.As of 2 March, response rates for EPA hovered around 2 percent, with 296 completed surveys, compared with NOAA’s response rate, which was 4.1 percent with 460 completed surveys. Still, in 2015 NOAA’s response rate was 19.6 percent with 2,388 completed responses.While EPA employees did not participate in 2015—the agency said it would conduct its own scientific integrity survey—it did join in previous years. In 2007, under President George W. Bush, the agency’s response rate was 29.3 percent with 1,586 completed surveys, according to UCS records.The poor response rate this year at EPA may also stem from the EPA CSIRC’s recommendation that the survey be marked as spam.Tammy Stein with EPA’s National Enforcement Investigations Center forwarded UCS’s email to CSIRC, the technology office, and all regional information security officers and wrote: “Suspicious activity.”CSIRC responded to Stein saying an analysis of the UCS survey request determined the email was SPAM “stemming from an unknown entity.””CSIRC recommends that if this email was unsolicited, that you treat the email as SPAM, do not click any links, and delete the email,” the email states.However, the following day an email from the Office of General Counsel’s Ethics Office states that employees are allowed to participate in the survey if they do so on their own time and do not use a government computer.Rosenberg said even with permission, employees might feel cautious about taking the survey. He said receiving a note from the Ethics Office, regardless of the contents, can act as a red flag.”You read the email and if you’re a cautious civil servant you’d say, I’m not touching this,” he said. “EPA is now saying the staff level is below the years of the Reagan administration after big cutbacks, so people have a good reason to worry about their jobs.”He added: “What you want them to be doing is worrying about science, not worrying about their jobs.”Joel Clement, the former top climate policy expert at the Interior Department before he resigned last summer, said he’s also concerned about why employees aren’t filling out the survey.”I worry there is some degree of intimidation going on there that’s keeping them from filling it out,” he said. “It certainly matches their approach at Interior right now, which is to avoid consulting with the career staff, to cut them out of the decisionmaking process and in some cases to intimate them.”Clement, who resigned in protest from Interior after he was transferred to an office that oversees oil and gas royalties, joined UCS as a senior fellow earlier this year. He said the morale at Interior now is “probably as bad as it’s ever been.”He said, in particular, the dismantling of Interior advisory committees has taken its toll on staff. Without the landscape conservation cooperatives (LCCs), which the Fish and Wildlife Service oversees, an effective avenue for engaging stakeholders and affecting meaningful policy has been lost, he added.”These were multi-stakeholder, problem-solving committees addressing things like climate impacts,” he said. “They were doing all the right things in terms of sustainable solutions, but because they were an Obama-era program, they shut down the steering committees.””Anything that has a whiff of climate change is being hobbled or deleted,” he said.Reprinted from E&E Daily with permission from E&E News. Copyright 2018. E&E provides essential news for energy and environment professionals at www.eenews.netcenter_img Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) The headquarters of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C. Ken Lund/Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0) Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Email Read more…last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *