A group of government scientists say they were pressured by management at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to present new chemicals they were investigating as being safer than they actually were.
When they failed to delete evidence of the serious dangers associated with the chemicals, their managers did it themselves.
The scientists claim that after pushing back, they were hit with negative performance reviews, while some lost their positions in the new chemical division and were reassigned to other parts in the agency.
Last week, the Inspector General of the EPA announced their finding that three of the scientists’ treatment can be considered retaliation, confirming that their negative reviews and reassignments were retaliatory. They also concluded that the scientists being denied a work-related incentive that can be used to take time off or traded for cash was retaliatory as well.
The report instructed the EPA to take “appropriate corrective action” as a result, including a potential three-day minimum suspension for supervisors who violated the Whistleblower Protection Act.
In response to the report, EPA assistant administrator Michael Freedhoff sent a letter to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention explaining that all managers would be undergoing “refresher training” on the Whistleblower Protection Act as well as scientific integrity in general and that their office would be reviewing the reports to see if additional action is needed.
Further reports are expected to be released about the scientific allegations made by the whistleblowers.
The three whistleblowers in question – Sarah Gallagher, William Irwin and Martin Phillips – maintained that the chemicals they were vetting for the agency could cause damages ranging from neurological problems and miscarriages to cancer.
The EPA appears to be trying to shift the blame for what happened to former President Donald Trump as the incident took place during his administration. They say that the agency was under pressure to push chemicals through the approval process more quickly.
“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 claimed.
Hellbound and Down 