NOAA Scientists Say Reports Altered

AP on Yahoo ^ | 6/29/05 | Jeff Barnard - AP

[NormsRevenge]

GRANTS PASS, Ore. - Many scientists at NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency responsible for balancing hydroelectric dams against endangered salmon, say they know of cases where scientific findings were altered at the request of commercial interests, according to a survey released Tuesday by two watchdog groups.

The survey was conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. The survey posed 34 questions and was sent to 460 NOAA Fisheries scientists across the country. Responses came back from 124, or 27 percent.

"The conclusion is that political interference is a serious problem at NOAA Fisheries," Lexis Schulz, Washington representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said from Washington.

Among the findings:

- 58 percent of respondents said they knew of cases where high-level Commerce Department appointees or managers inappropriately altered NOAA Fisheries determinations.

• 53 percent said they were aware of cases in which commercial interests inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of NOAA Fisheries scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention.

• 13 percent said they knew of cases where environmental interests inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of NOAA Fisheries scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention.

• 44 percent said NOAA Fisheries routinely makes determinations using its best scientific judgment, even when political pressure is applied, while 37 percent disagreed.

Steven Murawski, director of scientific programs and chief science adviser for NOAA Fisheries, said from Washington that the survey represented about 6 percent of the nearly 2,000 scientists at the agency, and primarily represented the views of low-level staff who evaluate the work of others to develop management policy, not research scientists.

Murawski would not say there was no political influence over science at the agency, but said science is the foundation of policy decisions that must take into account social and economic factors.

"To say it is politicized is a cheap shot, really," he said. "These are complex decisions, and many times people don't like the outcomes for one reason or the other."

Schulz said one of the inspirations for the survey was a recent case where NOAA Fisheries adopted a policy that counts some hatchery salmon and wild salmon together when assessing their status as endangered species. The policy was adopted despite advice from the Salmon Recovery Science Review Panel, made up of independent scientists, that they should adopt rules to keep hatchery and wild fish separate.

At the time, NOAA Fisheries Northwest Regional Administrator Bob Lohn said the hatchery policy was guided by a federal court ruling and staff scientists.

Robert T. Paine, professor emeritus of biology at the University of Washington served as chairman of the review panel. He said from Seattle that NOAA Fisheries rejected the first part of their report when they saw it dealt with the 2001 ruling by U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan that the fisheries agency could not give Endangered Species Act protection just to wild fish if it had previously lumped hatchery fish into the same population.

"The political wing of NOAA was outraged at us dealing with the Hogan decision," Paine said. "We were given three choices: submit the report as it was, and they wouldn't post it. To redo the report and they would be enthusiastic about it and they would help us do that. And thirdly, we were always given permission to publish."

They published their recommendations in the journal Science last year.

"I have no doubt, in fact, that there is a certain amount of tension between NOAA scientists who are charged with forming policy — the majority of those people are political appointees, so they are going to do whatever the current administration dictates — and the people in charge of science, if you will. There are a a lot of good scientists there. I think at times they feel terribly disappointed their recommendations are ignored or modified."

___

On the Net:

http://www.ucsusa.org//publications/report.cfm?publicationID1092

[NormsRevenge]

The survey 'fishing expedition' was conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. The survey posed 34 questions and was sent to 460 NOAA Fisheries scientists across the country. Responses came back from 124, or 27 percent.

[xcamel]

Um.. you're close.
Union of Concerned Socialist Communist Marxist and Unemployed Scientists, along with
Public Employees for Bigger, Fatter Contracts, Higher Taxes, Stronger Unions and Rarely Environmental Responsibility.

[Condor51]

Uh how's that old saying go? Something like, "figures lie and liars figure" I believe - and this tripe proves it.

1. "58 percent of respondents said they knew of cases where high-level Commerce Department appointees or managers inappropriately altered NOAA Fisheries determinations."

   Sounds bad doesn't it, but that 58% is horse hockey. Out of the 460 NOAA Fisheries scientists across the country only 27 percent responded (124) so that 58% is only 72 people and it's only 15.6% of all the scientists.

2. Then we have, "53 percent said blah, blah, blah". That's only 66 people and only 14% of all scientists.

3. The "13 percent said they knew of cases ... blah, blah" is only 16 stinking people and a whopping 3.5% of all scientists.

4. Last we have "44 percent said NOAA Fisheries .. (whatever). That's 55 people and a lousy 12% of all 460 scientists.

Ergo this survey is utterly meaningless. How can they even publish it when only 27% even responded? They might as well have taken this 'survey' around their dinner table!

[fso301]

who's to say the findings weren't flawed in the first place?

[Only1choice____Freedom]

85.35% of all stastics are made up on the spot.






Like this one.

[GOP_1900AD]

More Clinton era hires whining. Should have fired them all during the first term.

[Publius6961]

say they know of cases where scientific findings were altered at the request of commercial interests

Hilarious!
They make it sound like a new phenomenon in cultural politics.

Has any science ever been "altered" at the request of the Bugs and Bunny crowd?
Remember the mountain lion hair scandal? That was out and out fraud!

LOL.