Author Sharon Lerner at ProPublica featured at MedPage Today

AB: Bit of a rewrite to shorten this up for readers at Angry Bear. Just when you think agencies and the management team will do the right thing, they do not. Lower echelon scientists to make public the issues with the findings that were not theirs and made public as theirs.

A watchdog’ ‘s findings of health harms from chemicals was blocked and the finders of fact were retaliated against . . .

More than 3 years ago, a small group of government scientists came forward with disturbing allegations.

During President Donald Trump’s administration, the government scientists claimed their managers at the EPA began pressuring them. This effort was to make the new chemicals they were vetting seem safer than they really were. They were encouraged to delete evidence of chemicals’ harms, including cancer, miscarriage, and neurological problems, from their reports. In some cases, they said, their managers deleted the information themselves.

After the scientists pushed back, they received negative performance reviews. The three of them were removed from their positions in the EPA’s division of new chemicals. They were reassigned to jobs elsewhere in the agency.

On Wednesday, the EPA inspector general announced it had found the treatment experienced by three of those scientists — Martin Phillips, PhD, Sarah Gallagher, PhD, and William Irwin, PhD, — amounted to retaliation.

Three reports issued by the inspector general confirmed that the scientists’ negative performance reviews. Included was the reassignment, and the denial of an award used for cash or time off were retaliatory. They also detailed personal attacks by supervisors, who called them “stupid,” “piranhas” and “pot-stirrers.”

The reports called on the EPA to take “appropriate corrective action” in response to the findings. In one case, the inspector general noted that supervisors who violate the Whistleblower Protection Act should be suspended for at least 3 days.

The reports focus only on the retaliation claims. The inspector general is expected to issue reports in the future about the whistleblowers’ scientific allegations.

An email was sent to the staff of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention after the reports were released. The EPA Assistant Administrator Michal Freedhoff, PhD, wrote the office plans to hold a “refresher training on both scientific integrity and the Whistleblower Protection Act.” An action for all managers in the office. Freedhoff also wrote that the office is “reviewing the reports to determine whether additional action may be necessary.”

In a statement to ProPublica, the EPA tied the problems laid out in the report to Trump.

“The events covered by these reports began during the previous administration when the political leadership placed intense pressure on both career managers and scientists in EPA’s new chemicals program to more quickly review and approve new chemicals.” The agency added during the goings on the “work environment has been transformed under Administrator Michael Regan’s leadership.”

Trump campaign spokes people did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A second Trump presidency could see more far-reaching interference with the agency’s scientific work. Project 2025, the radical conservative policy plan to overhaul the government, would make it much easier to fire scientists who raised concerns about industry influence.

“I’m worried about the future because there are groups out there pushing for changes to the civil service that would make it so I could be fired and replaced with a non-scientist,” said Phillips, a chemist. Publicly available versions of the inspector general’s reports redacted the names of all EPA employees, including the scientists. However, Phillips, Gallagher, and Irwin confirmed the investigations focused on their complaints.

Phillips said the experience of having his work changed, facing hostility from his supervisors, and agonizing about whether and how to alert authorities was traumatic. He began pushing back against the pressure from his bosses in 2019. He was trying to explain why his calculations were correct and refusing their requests to change his findings.

In one case, someone had deleted a report he had written noting a chemical caused miscarriages and birth defects in rats. Replacing it was another report that omitted this critical information. After Phillips asked that the original report be restored. Instead, he was removed from his position within the EPA’s division of new chemicals. Phillips was assigned a job elsewhere in the agency.

Phillips told ProPublica about the almost year long period. He was sparring with his managers in the new chemicals’ division.

“I was turned into a pariah. I lost sleep. I dreaded going to work. I was worried every time I had to meet with my supervisor or other members of the team. It made me question whether I wanted to continue in my job.”

He and the other scientists said they felt vindicated by the inspector general’s findings.

Another scientist, Irwin said, “It’s gratifying and a relief.” Irwin has worked at the EPA for 15 years.

The division where Irwin and the other scientists worked plays a critical role within the EPA. Companies that develop new chemicals are required to get permission from the EPA to introduce them to the market. If the agency finds that they could pose an unreasonable risk to health or the environment, it must, by law, regulate them, which can involve limiting or forbidding their production or use.

After being forced to leave their jobs assessing new chemicals, the scientists filed the first of what would be six complaints with the EPA inspector general in June 2021. The allegations detailed the industry pressure that continued under the administration of President Joe Biden and pointed fingers at career officials who still worked for the EPA. They were the subject of a 10-part series the author published in The Intercept. Three of those career scientists named in the complaints subsequently left the EPA. And the agency ordered changes to address the corruption the whistleblowers had alleged. This includes the creation of two internal science policy advisory councils aimed at shoring up scientific integrity.

Kyla Bennett, PhD, director of science policy at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, an organization helping scientists draft complaints to the EPA inspector general. added . . .

“These whistleblowers have been beaten down, ostracized, and punished, when all they were trying to do was to protect us.”

The inspector general’s reports said supervisors defended their actions, claiming that the whistleblowers took an overly conservative approach in their assessments. In some cases, criticisms the supervisors had relayed from the companies that submitted the chemicals were valid. One supervisor said scientists “were expected to make compromises to complete the new chemicals assessments.”

The inspector general released two additional reports that did not substantiate allegations of retaliation made by two other scientists.

Bennett said she was particularly concerned about how the outcome of the upcoming presidential election could affect the whistleblowers. Saying . . .

“If there is another Trump administration, I will be petrified for them.”

If Trump fulfills even some of the promises made in Project 2025, job security for the whistleblowers — and all EPA scientists — will become much more tenuous. Project 2025 specifically calls for new chemicals to be approved quickly and proposes that all employees whose work touches on policy in federal agencies would become at-will workers, allowing them to be fired more easily.

Although Trump has attempted to distance himself from the effort, saying, “I don’t know what the hell it is.” Reporting by ProPublica showed that 29 out of 36 speakers worked for Trump in some capacity.

All three scientists who were found to have been the victims of retaliation said they worry that the underlying problems they raised have not been adequately addressed and might worsen.

The scientists said they were still concerned about industry pressure on the EPA’s chemical approval process. Gallagher said.

“It’s been 4 years since we first started raising concerns about what was happening, and we haven’t seen a resolution yet. We haven’t gotten assurance that the concerns we’ve been raising will be fixed.”

Still, Gallagher said she thinks the inspector general’s investigation might begin to lessen the burdens she’s felt since she blew the whistle at the EPA.

“I’m hoping that I’ll be able to feel valued in my job again.”