The Union of Concerned Scientists has issued a report (pdf) looking into EPA interference from industry lobbyists and politicians. The findings won’t be any surprise to those that have been following the goings on at the EPA over the last 7 ½ years, but they are disturbing nonetheless. Through dozens of interviews with current and former EPA staff, analysis of government documents, a 44 question survey sent to almost 5,500 current EPA scientists that garnered more than 1,600 responses, and written comments from EPA scientists, the investigation finds suppression and distortion of scientific findings, political interference in research and reports, and manipulation of scientific documents by political appointees.

More specifically, according to the survey:

• 889 scientists (60 percent of respondents) personally experienced at least one incident of political interference during the past five years.
• Among EPA veterans (scientists with more than 10 years of experience at the agency), 409 (43 percent) said interference occurred more often in the past five years than in the previous five-year period.
• 94 scientists (7 percent) had frequently or occasionally been “directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from an EPA scientific document.”
• 232 scientists (18 percent) had personally experienced frequent or occasional “changes or edits during review that change the meaning of scientific findings.”
• 285 scientists (22 percent) had personally experienced frequent or occasional “selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome.”
• 299 scientists (24 percent) had personally experienced frequent or occasional “disappearance or unusual delay in the release of websites, press releases, reports, or other science-based materials.”
• 394 scientists (31 percent) had personally experienced frequent or occasional “statements by EPA officials that misrepresent scientists’ findings.”
• 516 scientists (43 percent) knew of “many or some” cases where EPA political appointees had inappropriately involved themselves in scientific decisions.
• 560 scientists (49 percent) knew of “many or some” cases where political appointees at other federal agencies had inappropriately involved themselves in decisions.
• Nearly 100 scientists identified the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which oversees the federal budget and coordinates all federal regulations, as the primary source of external interference.
• 507 scientists (42 percent) knew of “many or some” cases where “commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of EPA scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention.”
• 329 scientists (28 percent) knew of such interference by “nongovernmental or advocacy groups.”
• Only 197 scientists (13 percent) agreed that the EPA allows scientists to communicate freely with the media.
• 492 scientists (31 percent) disagreed or strongly disagreed that they could openly express concerns about the EPA’s work inside the agency without fear of retaliation.
• Interviews with current and former EPA scientists revealed new examples of problems in communicating scientific research. In two cases, EPA scientists were barred from presenting research on climate change at scientific conferences.
• 969 scientists (62 percent) disagreed or strongly disagreed that the “EPA division where I work has sufficient resources to adequately perform its mission of protecting human health and the environment.”
• Respondents were evenly split on whether the EPA is moving in the right direction.

Think about these statistics for a moment. 60% of the people working at the top environmental watch dog agency report political interference in their job. 60%! And a staggering 42% of EPA employees report incidences of corporations inappropriately influencing the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention. This interference by corporate interests is hardly exclusive to the EPA. The Washington Post reports that the Food and Drug Administration’s and the EPA’s contention that Bisphenol A is safe (the compound is regulated by both agencies) was based largely on two studies, both funded by the American Plastics Council, an organization representing the multi-billion dollar plastics industry to which BPA is central, representing billions of dollars in profits. Apparently these two studies trumped over 100 published studies by government scientists and universities that raised serious health concerns about BPA.

Thankfully, Congress is paying close attention. My own Representative, Henry Waxman, (D- CA) chair of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the only person in Congress with subpoena authority, has called on EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to respond to questions about the UCS report at a hearing coming up in May. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) has introduced a bill to prohibit some uses of BPA in response to the NIH report on health risks and ten states are considering their own regulations of the compound. And Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative John Dingell (D-MI) is investigating the role that lobbying groups played in the regulatory process of BPA.

Concerning the EPA, UCS makes some sweeping recommendations for restoring the integrity of the agency, namely protecting EPA scientists, many of whom (31%) feel they cannot openly express their opinion inside the EPA; increased transparency at the agency, no more closed door decisions with lobbyists and corporate interest being given a secret seat at the table; regulatory reform to prevent the White House from changing scientific findings; a review of the use of scientific experts in findings; and taking politics out of funding, monitoring and enforcement. These same suggestions could apply to the FDA, the CDC, NIH and a number of other federal regulatory bodies for that matter -- so many of which have seen corporate and political interests trump science for the past 7 ½ years. The coming Congressional hearings could go a long way to making these suggestions a reality and restoring the ability of government scientists to do the job they were hired for, namely, protecting the people.