Scientists claim censorship by federal agency

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) - Seven federal fisheries scientists filed a complaint Monday claiming their supervisor censored their research into the water needs of threatened Klamath Basin salmon because it was viewed by others as biased, violating an Obama administration policy prohibiting political manipulation of science by the federal government.
The whistleblower protection organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility said it filed the complaint with the U.S. Department of Interior Office of the Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs on behalf of seven fisheries scientists at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation office in Klamath Falls.
"Requiring that science be non-controversial is like ordering your omelet made with uncracked eggs," PEER executive director Jeff Ruch said in a statement. "Scientific differences are supposed to be addressed through consultation, not suppressed by bullying and threats."
The Klamath Basin has long been locked in an intense political struggle over sharing scarce water between threatened and endangered fish and a federal irrigation project. A drought in 2001 forced the bureau to shut off most water for the Klamath Reclamation Project, which straddles the Oregon-California border south of Klamath Falls, to preserve water for threatened coho salmon in the Klamath River and endangered suckers in the project's main reservoir.
The complaint alleges Klamath Basin Area Office Manager Jason Phillips took steps to transfer the seven scientists and assign their work to the U.S. Geological Survey, because he felt that other agencies and interested parties in the Klamath Basin viewed their research as inherently biased in favor of the bureau, "producing scientific work only to prove other agencies wrong."
"Our fear is that professionalism has become hazardous to our careers inside Reclamation," Keith Schultz, one of the seven scientists, said in a statement. "We hope this complaint will make a difference in allowing other scientists to come forward and be truthful about science."
Phillips issued a statement saying the Klamath Area Office frequently reviews operations to make the best use of resources, and the proposed change concerning the fisheries scientists met that goal. He said no one will lose their job.
The complaint says Phillips noted the NOAA Fisheries Service, which oversees protection of salmon, raised concerns over a life-cycle model the scientists produced on the coho salmon, a threatened species. NOAA Fisheries has set minimum flows, controlled by the bureau, down the Klamath River to protect the coho. The life-cycle model suggested that flows in the Klamath River were less important than flows in tributaries, which are not controlled by the bureau. The complaint says the model was never published.
The scientists also produced research showing a stable population of endangered suckers in Lake Ewauna, previously considered a dead zone, the complaint said, forcing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to re-evaluate its strategy for saving the suckers from extinction.
"It appears clear that Mr. Phillips and those other officials involved in his threats are reacting to the political interagency 'problems' associated with the scientific work of the Fisheries Resources Branch - not the quality, integrity or value of that scientific work," the complaint said. "This type of coercive and obstructive activity cuts to the core of the very reason for the (Department of Interior) Scientific Integrity policies."
The Obama administration adopted the policy prohibiting political manipulation of science following findings that during the Bush administration, politics influenced the application of science in endangered species management.
The whistleblower protection organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility said it filed the complaint with the U.S. Department of Interior Office of the Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs on behalf of seven fisheries scientists at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation office in Klamath Falls.
"Requiring that science be non-controversial is like ordering your omelet made with uncracked eggs," PEER executive director Jeff Ruch said in a statement. "Scientific differences are supposed to be addressed through consultation, not suppressed by bullying and threats."
The Klamath Basin has long been locked in an intense political struggle over sharing scarce water between threatened and endangered fish and a federal irrigation project. A drought in 2001 forced the bureau to shut off most water for the Klamath Reclamation Project, which straddles the Oregon-California border south of Klamath Falls, to preserve water for threatened coho salmon in the Klamath River and endangered suckers in the project's main reservoir.
The complaint alleges Klamath Basin Area Office Manager Jason Phillips took steps to transfer the seven scientists and assign their work to the U.S. Geological Survey, because he felt that other agencies and interested parties in the Klamath Basin viewed their research as inherently biased in favor of the bureau, "producing scientific work only to prove other agencies wrong."
"Our fear is that professionalism has become hazardous to our careers inside Reclamation," Keith Schultz, one of the seven scientists, said in a statement. "We hope this complaint will make a difference in allowing other scientists to come forward and be truthful about science."
Phillips issued a statement saying the Klamath Area Office frequently reviews operations to make the best use of resources, and the proposed change concerning the fisheries scientists met that goal. He said no one will lose their job.
The complaint says Phillips noted the NOAA Fisheries Service, which oversees protection of salmon, raised concerns over a life-cycle model the scientists produced on the coho salmon, a threatened species. NOAA Fisheries has set minimum flows, controlled by the bureau, down the Klamath River to protect the coho. The life-cycle model suggested that flows in the Klamath River were less important than flows in tributaries, which are not controlled by the bureau. The complaint says the model was never published.
The scientists also produced research showing a stable population of endangered suckers in Lake Ewauna, previously considered a dead zone, the complaint said, forcing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to re-evaluate its strategy for saving the suckers from extinction.
"It appears clear that Mr. Phillips and those other officials involved in his threats are reacting to the political interagency 'problems' associated with the scientific work of the Fisheries Resources Branch - not the quality, integrity or value of that scientific work," the complaint said. "This type of coercive and obstructive activity cuts to the core of the very reason for the (Department of Interior) Scientific Integrity policies."
The Obama administration adopted the policy prohibiting political manipulation of science following findings that during the Bush administration, politics influenced the application of science in endangered species management.
"...violating an Obama administration policy prohibiting political manipulation of science by the federal government."
Now that's just plain funny. I guess we need another policy that works in reverse for "global warming"? The kings of political manipulation mandating what can be manipulated. Logic is just gone.
As long as the work these 7 scientists did was actual science (a conclusion derived from actual scientific facts and tests with reproducable results) and not the pre-determined conclusion with facts searched for to support a conclusion that they wanted', then they may have a case.
Â
Â
komoispropaganda: Try checking your opinions before trying to pass them on as "Truth"... http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ndrp.asp
Jeez, what a poorly written article. One wonders if the author even knows what it's about.
Business as usual in America.
Research is full of personal politics, highly educated people who try to balk at regulations, and academic turf wars. It's a wonder we learn anything at all but there you go. It''s like the saying about you may like to have hot dogs but you wouldn't want to see how they are made.Â
"an Obama administration policy prohibiting political manipulation of science by the federal government."
Â
Obama and political manipulation in the same sentence, LOL......
Â
He would NEVER manipulate anything......... eh?
 @komoispropaganda Citations to substantiate this opinion, please?
 @sims I'm not going to cite anything, do your own homework.
Â
Wellll.... I'll give you just one. The âNational Defense Resources Preparednessâ is an executive order giving the president and his cabinet the power to declare "peacetime martial law" and confiscate all property both personal and industrial in PREPARATION for some imaginary national disaster. This was signed in the middle of the night so the media could not be present and given a non-threatening name to keep it out of the public eye. Imagine peacetime rationing of food, gas, water and heat, and having YOUR property/animals just taken to support the very troops that would throw you in jail/shoot and kill you for being dissident? As far as a reference goes, it's on the whitehouse website.
Â
Imagine giving yourself unbridled power with the stroke of a pen.
Â
The 'great manipulator' is well practiced at not telling the people what goes on behind the curtain.
Â
Now instead of just reading manipulative stories on network news sites try going out and seeing some of the truth about your glorious leader.
 @komoispropaganda Might want to tighten your tinfoil hat, some brown stuff is leaking out... So Your truth is the ONLY truth huh? Snopes has a higher reliability index than you do...
@komoispropaganda --- Dude - do you even do any research on the crap you read on the internet? Â
Â
You do realize that Snopes has a pretty outstanding record for finding the truth behind 'internet urban legends' (aka 'things posted on the internet').   They investigate and find the truth whether it's something attributed to a liberal or a conservative. For the years that I have known about those folks, I have seen no bias towards or against any political side in thier work.
Â
Your record for finding the truth behind 'things posted on the internet' is nowhere near as good. You seem to grab whatever meets your personal beliefs and political biases and consider it factual without trying to see if it's true or not. You should try sometime. It's quite refreshing (and informative).
Â
Â
Â
Â
 @Jay Crandall One more thing. If you think snopes can't twist and turn the truth, then you'll never know the truth. YOUR truth is no truth.
You're gonna call snopes the answer? Did you READ the executive order?
Â
Next.
 @komoispropaganda Try checking your opinions before trying to pass them on as "Truth"... http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ndrp.asp