![]() ![]() The rule also helps give cover to political manipulation of government science, Ruch said. In a letter to the OSTP asking it to rescind the rule, Peer cited examples of current research that could be put at risk, including EPA studies of toxic PFAS migrating off of military bases, or Centers for Disease Control research showing dangerous viruses are at risk of release from wildlife laboratories. “It’s these sorts of scenarios that we’re trying to draw OSTP’s attention to – it’s the science that’s controversial that can get a scientist in trouble.” “If you can’t study pollinators as an entomologist then that leaves you with a lot of things that you can’t do,” Ruch said. It also barred him from speaking at a conference about the effects genetically modified crops and pesticides have on pollinators. ![]() In 2014, then USDA entomologist Jon Lundgren was part of a study that suggested monoculture farming reduces diversity in insect populations.Ĭiting the rule, the USDA’s political leadership, then under Tom Vilsack, an Obama appointee, ordered Lundgren to remove his name from the study. Since 2013, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has had in place a similar rule, and used it to censor a scientist at the behest of Monsanto, Ruch said. Such communications shall remain within the bounds of their scientific or technological findings, unless specifically otherwise authorized.” The controversial text reads: “ scientists shall refrain from making or publishing statements that could be construed as being judgments of, or recommendations on, or any other federal government policy, unless they have secured appropriate prior approval to do so. Ironically, the rule was included in a section entitled “Ensuring the Free Flow of Scientific Information”. The Biden administration rewrite was supposed to strengthen the document, but Ruch said it remains vague, and text was also inserted as a “gag rule”. “The policies were so ineffective that it provided the Trump administration cover – that was worse than no policy at all,” Ruch said. He noted former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt cited the policy when he barred three agency employees from talking about water quality issues in Rhode Island. The Trump administration then capitalized on its weaknesses to use it as cover to make controversial decisions, Ruch said. The framework was developed during the Obama administration but seen as vague and incomplete. ![]() The rule was issued last month as part of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s (OSTP) rewrite of the Framework for Federal Scientific Integrity Policy and Practice, composed of employee procedures the administration’s agencies can implement. “Government scientists should not need to cast a profile in courage to openly discuss the implications of their research.” “Besides being unconstitutional, the prohibition serves no discernible public purpose,” he said. It would only benefit industrial players who oppose research that could lead to policy changes or stricter regulations, Ruch added. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |