Keep separate science, politics

• Published February 10, 2008

• Comments (0)

Lawmakers at the state and federal level expect scientists to provide them with the data upon which to make sound public policy decisions.

But what happens when that scientific data is altered to fit political agendas? We've seen it at the federal level under the Bush administration, and now scientists in Washington state government say they need more job protection to keep their information from being compromised.

This is a matter of public trust.

Residents across this country were shocked two years ago by the results of a survey of climate scientists who said their findings were being tailored to reflect political goals rather than scientific fact. The scientists said that, through its actions, the federal government has exaggerated the level of uncertainty in global warming science.

In the summer of 2006, the Union of Concerned Scientists distributed surveys to more than 1,600 climate scientists working at seven federal agencies asking for information about the state of climate research.

Their findings:

• 58 percent of all respondents personally experienced interference with climate science research in the past five years. The number increased to 78 percent among scientists whose work always or frequently touches upon sensitive or controversial topics.

• 46 percent perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words "climate change," "global warming," or other similar terms from a variety of communications.

• 43 percent perceived or personally experienced changes or edits to documents during review processes that changed the meaning of scientific findings.

• 37 percent of respondents perceived or personally experienced instances in which their agency misrepresented scientists' findings.

That's an indictment of the Bush administration and calls into serious question every utterance about climate change from any federal agency.

Now comes the state's largest employee union asking for whistle-blower protections for workers who refuse to compromise their scientific data.

"Scientific integrity is the issue employees at the Department of Ecology is concerned about," said Pete Kmet, a Department of Ecology employee and union steward and a member of the Tumwater City Council. Kmet said some employees feel pressured to change their research findings to fit the desires of management.

That should never happen. Employees who feel such pressure must be protected by state law.

This year's proposal to address the concern is House Bill 3193. It would make significant changes to the whistleblower program, which allows workers to report improper actions at agencies.

"This bill is about making sure those various opinions and scientific analysis are available for policy makers like yourself, and agency management, and the public," Kmet told members of the House State Government and Operations Committee.

Agency officials objected to the initial draft of the legislation, saying it was too sweeping in its scope.

Perhaps.

But there ought to be a way to negotiate on this measure so scientific research and those who do the research are not compromised in any way.

It is a matter of public trust.