Home » Environment »News »Science Media » Currently Reading:

What Happened to Obama’s Promise to Restore Scientific Integrity?

April 20, 2015 Environment, News, Science Media 4 Comments

By Jonathan Latham, PhD

Pretty much every branch of the US government has had trouble implementing President Obama’s flagship scientific integrity policy. In 2011, the US Department of the Interior (DOI) appointed the scientist Dr. Paul Houser to be its first ever Officer of Scientific Integrity. Within a year he was fired. Believing his dismissal was for drawing attention to a scientifically questionable Department policy, Houser formally accused the DOI of “scientific and scholarly misconduct and reprisal.” But because the Department of the Interior had fired him, they no longer had a scientific integrity officer for him to complain to.

US EPA, Washington DC

US EPA, Washington DC

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has had a new scientific integrity policy since 2013. Despite that policy, the non-profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) recently petitioned USDA saying that “suppression and alteration of scientific work for political reasons remain common at USDA” and that agency scientists “routinely suffer retaliation and harassment” when their work offends agribusiness.

About the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the worst that had been said was that, four years after the President’s promise, the agency still had not hired anyone; plus that its outline for a Scientific Integrity Plan lacked integrity. But that was before publication of its first ever Scientific Integrity report.

The President’s promise falters at EPA, too

Back in November 2009, in his first inaugural address, President Obama committed again to what had by then become a major and much-discussed campaign promise: to “restore science to its rightful place”.

The Presidential promise followed a series of Bush era government scandals, such as letting Vice-President Dick Cheney’s staff edit global warming reports. The scandals showed repeated attempts by business lobbies, and the Federal Government itself, to obstruct and distort scientific policy-making, scientific data, and scientific advice.

The President’s chosen method to “restore science” was to create officers of scientific integrity at federal agencies and government departments. These officers would investigate all complaints relating to scientific integrity, whether from insiders or outsiders.

In 2013, after delays even more lengthy than at other agencies, EPA finally appointed Dr Francesca Grifo, formerly of the scientific integrity programme of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Grifo thus became the inaugural EPA Official of Scientific Integrity (ScIO) and also the Obama integrity appointee with the highest profile and expectations.

It was an event of unreported but considerable interest therefore, when Grifo and her assistant last month published the EPA’s first ever annual Report on Scientific Integrity.

The Integrity Report was very revealing. It showed, firstly, that EPA’s new ScIO dismissed, without any investigation, 23 of the 40 complaints received in its first full year of operation.

The reason given for the 23 dismissals is that they were anonymous. All but one of these 23 anonymous complaints were from EPA staff.

Of the 17 remaining complaints, 3 were passed to other EPA offices, again without investigation. Ten are in an unspecified “inquiry phase”. EPA’s Scientific Integrity Officer has therefore resolved just three of the 40 cases submitted to it. These are all described as “minor.” One was resolved and dismissed. The fate of the remaining two is unknown since they are not described in the report.

Responsibility for integrity at EPA

At EPA, Grifo and her assistant are supposed to work with a new committee, comprising existing EPA officials from all of its functional departments and regional offices. A result of this arrangement, however, is that Grifo’s independent powers are limited.

The 2014 report describes for the first time the protocol Grifo developed for handling complaints. It makes clear that the rerouting by her office of allegations (i.e. those not already dismissed for being made anonymously) to other EPA offices, without performing any investigation, is a policy:

If the allegation concerns waste, fraud, or abuse or other criminal violations, the allegation would be referred to the OIG (Office of the Inspector General). If the allegation involves reprisal, it would be referred to the OIG or the Office of Special Counsel.  If the allegation concerns a financial conflict of interest or other ethics issue involving federal employees it would go to the appropriate Deputy Ethics Official or Office of General Counsel/Ethics, or Human Subjects Research Review Official, as appropriate.

This leaves Dr. Grifo with only those “lapses of scientific integrity” that have no broader (i.e. ethical or criminal) implications. These include cases of scientific authorship, censorship and peer review.

But even if an integrity complaint were to be substantiated by the new ScIO, the most that Grifo and her “review team” can do is write a “recommendation report.” This is because Grifo, the report also reveals, has no authority to determine sanctions. Any “administrative and or corrective action is determined by the direct line supervisor or other manager.” This is allegedly to protect the rights of EPA employees.

For Jeff Ruch, Executive Director of the public accountability nonprofit PEER, the new report lacks sufficient information and transparency, which in turn reflects long term problems at EPA:

“From the EPA scientists who come through our door we hear tales of suppression, arbitrary decision-making and reprisal.” Yet, says Ruch, “EPA never admits that it has scientific integrity issues of any kind that need correction or improvement, thus the policies are presented as sort of superfluous window-dressing.”

As Dr Grifo said (when she was head of UCS’s scientific integrity program) about the firing of Paul Houser from the DOI “I have to say, this doesn’t smell right.”

Former EPA whistleblower, William Sanjour, who is an advisor to the National Whistleblower Center told Independent Science News that:

“This Office of Scientific Integrity is just another EPA public relations office designed to give the impression that the people can influence the agency. Without a specific mandate from Congress this office has no such authority and is only there to give the public and EPA staff the false impression that it has the power to change things. Its real function is to keep complaints from going outside the government’s control.”

Allison Wilson, Science Director of The Bioscience Resource Project, sees a yet more worrisome implication:

“The president has made strong statements about the importance of scientific integrity, which we agree with. But if actions speak louder than words then President Obama cares no more about scientific integrity than did his predecessor. Vast sums of money are spent on science, but no one wants to take simple steps to ensure its independence. That’s a scary thought. Science absolutely requires independence and integrity. Without them science ceases to be science. It becomes a tool to manipulate people.”

Correction (10:31am, Mon 20th): An earlier version of this report stated that: “Of the 17 remaining complaints, 14 were passed to other EPA offices, again without investigation. EPA’s Scientific Integrity Officer has therefore investigated just three of the 40 cases submitted to it. These are all described as “minor.” One was resolved and dismissed. The fate of the remaining two is unknown since they are not elaborated on in the report.” The version in the main text is now correct.

Currently there are "4 comments" on this Article:

  1. Obama appointed Michael Taylor, former counsel for Monsanto to be the U.S. food safety Czar. Thus we ended up with 85% of all foods being contaminated by GMO’s. His people at the NRC have extended licenses to nuclear power plants that are leaking, and have badly rusted pipes. Those plants should have been decommissioned. His FDA allows dangerous pharmaceutical drugs to enter the market and injure an kill thousands. Meanwhile the FDA attempts to suppress natural therapies. Right now the FDA is about to “re-evaluate” the status of homeopathy, a safe and effective alternative to Pharma drugs.
    Obama is not the progressive people believed him to be. Strangely, few “liberals” have figured this out.

  2. Dan Barski says:

    Considering the way whistle-blowers have been treated by this administration, it is obvious why complaints would tend to be made anonymously. What I found most surprising (and most disturbing) is that these complaints are being dismissed out of hand. One can only imagine what a farce law enforcement would be if agencies such as the FBI dismissed anonymous tips in this way. Apparently, the stated objective of ‘scientific integrity’ is being undermined by a lack of political integrity. Thank you for this enlightening report.

  3. jrlatham says:

    There should be no doubt that EPA has a culture of reprisal and scientific suppression, as this press release makes clear:
    According to the judge, EPA:

    “Failed, and failed miserably, over an extended course of time in complying with its discovery obligations and…Court discovery orders”;
    Worked a “fraud on the Court” through numerous “false claims” and inaccurate claims of privilege which upon examination applied to “none of the documents provided” (Emphasis in original); and
    Deliberately and illegally destroyed an unknown number of documents which should have been under a litigation hold.

    And much more.

  4. Michael says:

    The government is a corporation and a criminal organization. It uses violence, fear and intimidation to enforce non-laws upon the masses under the illusion of protection. It commits such crimes as money laundering, racketeering, murder, theft, drug running, arms sales, torture, kidnapping, assault, illegal spying, and ecocide. There’s not much difference between the government and the mafia. Time for a change? Indeed it is!

Comment on this Article:

Science News on the Web

Why Independent Science News?

Scientific inventions and ideas shape the future. As science becomes ever more beset by commercial and ideological pressures, there is urgent need for scientific reporting and analysis from an independent, expert, public interest perspective. With this standard, Independent Science News works to shape a future that is biodiverse, just, and healthy for everyone.
More about us...

Sign up to our mailing list

E-mail address:
Name (optional):



Related News Articles

Illegal GE Bacteria Detected in An Animal Feed Supplement

107 Nobel Laureate Attack on Greenpeace Traced Back to Biotech PR Operators

Financial Conflicts at National Academy Advisory Panel on the Future of GMO Regulation

Many European Pesticide Approvals Are “unlawful” Says EU Ombudsman

GE Soybeans Give Altered Milk and Stunted Offspring, Researchers Find

New Research Links Neonicotinoid Pesticides to Monarch Butterfly Declines

EU Safety Institutions Caught Plotting an Industry “escape route” Around Looming Pesticide Ban

How “Extreme Levels” of Roundup in Food Became the Industry Norm


The UK’s Royal Society: a Case Study in How the Health Risks of GMOs Have Been Systematically Misrepresented

by Steven Druker For more than twenty years, many eminent scientists and scientific institutions have routinely claimed that genetically modified foods are safe. And because of the perceived authority of their pronouncements, most government officials and members of the media have believed them. But when the arguments these scientists employ …

“Poison Papers” Snapshot: HOJO Transcript Illustrates EPA Collusion With Chemical Industry

The Poison Papers

by Rebekah Wilce The world of independent chemical testing has a shiny veneer. The public is reassured that chemicals they’re exposed to on a daily basis are certified by technicians in spotless white lab coats who carefully conduct scientific studies, including on animals in neat rows of cages. But a …

The Biotech Industry Is Taking Over the Regulation of GMOs from the Inside

by Jonathan Latham, PhD The British non-profit GMWatch recently revealed the agribusiness takeover of Conabia, the National Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology of Argentina. Conabia is the GMO assessment body of Argentina. According to GMWatch, 26 of 34 its members were either agribusiness company employees or had major conflicts of …

The Meaning of Life (Part I)

DNA double helix

by Jonathan Latham, PhD Many people date the DNA revolution to the discovery of its structure by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953. But really it began thirty years before, conceived by the mind of John D Rockefeller, Sr. Thus it is fitting that DNA is named after him. …

More Commentaries...


Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA

Poison Spring Evaggelos Valllianatos

Book Author: Evaggelos Vallianatos with McKay Jenkins Reviewed by: Carol Van Strum “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts,” Richard Feynman famously declared in 1966. Ever quick to challenge accepted wisdom, he distinguished the laudable ignorance of science, forever seeking unattainable certainties, from the dangerous ignorance of experts …

The Real Cost of Fracking: How America’s Shale Gas Boom Is Threatening Our Families, Pets, and Food

The Real Cost of Fracking book cover

Book Authors: Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald Reviewed by Allison Wilson (The Bioscience Resource Project) The first researchers to systematically document ill health in livestock, pets, and people living near fracking drill sites were Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald. Bamberger, a veterinarian, and Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at …

More Reviews...