Since no part of our government or medical system operates within any moral bounds at all, and since I can't do a damn thing about it, I no longer want to hear about it any more . Unsubscribe *Holeshot* *Those who have the privilege to know have the duty to act.* A Einstein all messages will be archived because the fascists do On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Jonathan Latham < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Remarkable. > Jonathan > USDA JUSTIFIES SCIENTIFIC SUPPRESSION AS ITS POLICY > > Confidential Agency Panel Approves Censorship and Media Gag Orders > > Posted on Feb 29, 2016 | Tags: Scientific Integrity > <http://www.peer.org/news/tags.html?news-tags=scientific-integrity>, USDA > <http://www.peer.org/news/tags.html?news-tags=usda> > > ------------------------------ > > Washington, DC — Under its policy purporting to protect scientific > integrity, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is entitled to do just the > opposite, according to confidential findings by an internal agency panel > released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). > The panel rejected a complaint by one of its top entomologists that USDA > purged controversial findings, blocked publication of research papers with > policy implications, and forbade scientists from being interviewed by > reporters. > > These conclusions come from a report by a five-member “Scientific > Integrity Review Panel” convened to review the dismissal of a complaint > filed by Dr. Jonathan Lundgren, a Senior Research Entomologist and Lab > Supervisor for the USDA Agriculture Research Service based in South Dakota > who has published research about adverse effects on monarch butterflies > from widely-used neonicotinoid insecticides (or “neonics”). The panel > agreed that Dr. Lundgren’s complaint should not be pursued because – > > - The panel was told that charges of “reprisal” and retaliatory > investigations were outside the scope of its review; > - The panel found that USDA is entitled to prohibit scientists from > speaking with reporters or even answering questions at conferences about > the significance or ramifications of published studies; and > - USDA’s Scientific Integrity Policy explicitly authorizes it to block > publication of research containing “statements that could be construed as > being judgments of or recommendations on USDA or any other federal > government policy.” > > “This review confirms that what occurs inside USDA does not resemble what > anyone else would consider ‘scientific integrity,’” stated Jeff Ruch, > Executive Director of PEER which is suing USDA for its refusal to even > consider a rulemaking petition seeking to strengthen the agency’s > Scientific Integrity Policy. “Inside USDA, politics determines what > scientific work will see the light of day.” > > On February 12th, USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong announced that her > office had opened an investigation into a “significant volume” of > complaints by agency scientists about censorship and interference with > research on subjects that USDA upper management deemed sensitive. > > The review panel report on the Lundgren complaint arises out of the first > appeal of any USDA scientific integrity complaint. Dr. Lundgren filed his > formal scientific integrity complaint in September of 2014. One month > later, it was rejected as not even meriting an investigation. Dr. Lundgren > immediately appealed but since USDA had never received an appeal on a > scientific integrity complaint decision, the agency took an entire year to > determine how to handle it. Yet under the guidelines finally developed – > > - The panel does not investigate the complaint but instead simply > reviews materials provided by agency management. In this case, no panel > member even attempted to speak with Dr. Lundgren or any of the witnesses he > identified; > - There is no process for remedying any alleged scientific misconduct > if it is ever confirmed; and > - The panel findings are confidential and USDA will not release them > under the Freedom of Information Act by maintaining that even final reports > are “deliberative.” > > “How will public confidence in the integrity of USDA science be enhanced > when all of the reviews are kept secret?” asked Ruch, noting that a stated > objective of the policy is to “ensure public confidence.” “Given how this > complaint was handled, no wonder scientific integrity lapses inside USDA > are never resolved and simply fester. Something now unmistakably clear is > that no scientist in their right mind should report political manipulation > of science inside USDA.” > > > ### > > Read the Scientific Integrity Review Panel report and approvals > <http://www.peer.org/assets/docs/usda/2_29_16_SIRP_report.pdf> > > See ruling that reprisal is outside the scope of USDA Scientific Integrity > Policy > <http://www.peer.org/assets/docs/usda/2_29_16_Ruling_Reprisal_Outside_Scope.pdf> > > Examine USDA scientific integrity appeal guidelines > <http://www.peer.org/assets/docs/usda/2_29_16_Appeal_Guidelines.pdf> > > View transmittal letter to Dr. Lundgren asking him to keep it confidential > <http://www.peer.org/assets/docs/usda/2_29_16_Lundgren_transmittal_ltr.pdf> > > Look at Dr. Lundgren’s scientific integrity and whistleblower complaints > <http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/usda-scientist-punished-for-pollinator-research.html> > > Revisit USDA refusal to consider strengthening its scientific integrity > policy > <http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/usda-sued-to-end-scientific-censorship.html> > Jonathan Latham, PhD > Executive Director > The Bioscience Resource Project > Ithaca, NY 14850 USA > > www.independentsciencenews.org > and > www.bioscienceresource.org > > [log in to unmask] > Skype: jonathanlatham2 > Tel: 1-607-319-0279 > > “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits > and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic > society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society > constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of > our country.”—Edward Bernays, Propaganda > >