You are here

Interior Secretary Salazar Issues "Scientific Integrity" Order

Share

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has issued an order directing the department and all its bureaus, including the National Park Service, to ensure the integrity of science conducted in those agencies. There also is a provision within the order to protect whistle blowers who believe the integrity is lacking.

The directive applies to both employees and political appointees.

Over the years there have been many questions raised over the integrity of government science, and reports of researchers being asked to slant their conclusions in one direction or another. Secretary Salazar is hopeful that his order will give the public more confidence in the science that goes into decision-making.

“The American people must have confidence that the Department of the Interior is basing its decisions on the best available science and that the scientific process is free of misconduct or improper influence,” Secretary Salazar said in prepared comments. “This policy clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of all department employees, including career staff and political appointees, in upholding principles of scientific integrity and conduct.”

The new policy "affirms that Interior employees, political and career, will never suppress scientific or technological findings or conclusions. Further, it ensures scientists will not be coerced to alter or censure scientific findings, and employees will be protected if they uncover and report scientific misconduct by career or political staff," an Interior Department release said Wednesday.

The new policy is consistent with the Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity, dated March, 9, 2009, and will conform with the expected 2010 guidance and recommendations of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Department has been working on a policy on scientific integrity for a number of years. The Department put out a draft for public comment in 2010, and many commenters noted that it did not sufficiently address scientific conduct by political appointees or use of scientific information in decision-making. The policy directive issued by Secretary Salazar today clearly applies the same standards of conduct to both political appointees and career appointees and forbids the alteration of scientific findings in policy-making activities.

The policy covers all departmental employees when they engage in, supervise or manage scientific activities, analyze and/or publicly communicate information resulting from scientific activities, or use this information or analyses in making agency policy, management or regulatory decisions. It also covers all contractors, cooperators, partners, volunteers, and permitees who assist with scientific activities.

The secretarial order, whose implementation will be overseen by Deputy Secretary David J. Hayes, incorporates the following principles:

* The Interior Department values science and science plays a vital role in helping us meet the department’s mission. As such, when scientific or technological information is considered in decision making, the information will be as robust, of the highest quality, and the result of rigorous scientific processes as can be achieved within the available decision time-frame.

* Interior Bureaus and Offices will document and make available to the public the scientific or technological findings or conclusions considered or relied on in decision making, except for information that is properly restricted from disclosure under procedures established in accordance with statute, regulation, Executive Order, or Presidential Memorandum.

* The selection and retention of candidates for science and technology positions and positions that are decision making in nature where those decisions rely on scientific information to inform the process, shall be based on the candidate's knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity.

* Clear and unambiguous codes of conduct for scientific activities and use of science in decision making will establish expectations of employees with regard to scientific integrity. Misconduct will not be tolerated. Allegations of misconduct will be investigated and disciplinary action will be taken as appropriate.

* Interior will identify, address, track, and resolve instances in which the scientific process or the integrity of scientific and technological information may be compromised.

* Interior will establish procedures and as appropriate, clarify whistleblower protections to ensure the integrity of scientific and technological information and processes on which the agency relies in its decision making or otherwise uses or prepares.

* Interior scientists have rights as citizens and responsibilities as government employees. These rights and responsibilities with regard to communication with the public will be clearly delineated.

* Interior encourages the enhancement of scientific integrity through engagement with the communities of practice represented by professional societies. Interior scientists, scholars and other professionals are encouraged to engage in scientific, scholarly and other activities with these professional networks. These Interior employees will recuse themselves when appropriate and avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest.

What remains to be seen is how science measures up to politics when it comes time to make decisions in the parks. After all, former Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and former Park Service Director Mary Bomar both said the best science would guide management decisions in the parks, and yet findings that snowmobiles were detrimental to Yellowstone National Park's resources didn't lead to the Park Service reverting back to a snowmobile ban called for by the Clinton administration.

The winter-use plan approved under their watch was tossed out by a federal judge, who said that the plan went against science and the Park Service's own Organic Act.

"According to NPS's own data," wrote U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in his September 2008 ruling, "the (winter-use plan) will increase air pollution, exceed the use levels recommended by NPS biologists to protect wildlife, and cause major adverse impacts to the natural soundscape in Yellowstone. Despite this, NPS found that the plan's impacts are wholly 'acceptable,' and utterly fails to explain this incongruous conclusion."

Not only did the agency botch its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act, according to Judge Sullivan, but it failed to follow the federal government's Administrative Policies Act, ignored its own National Park Service Organic Act, and couldn't "articulate why the plan's 'major adverse impacts' are 'necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of the park.'"

Comments

This must be why the Obama DOI bizarrely continues to deny Greater Sage-Grouse or American Pika, among others, endangered species act protections. Or why they keep lowering the bar set by the awful Bush Administration with regard to funding and enforcement of the ESA.

It's "science".


All the 2 stroke snowmobiles that were banned from Yellowstone during the Clinton administration continue to be banned today. The ones allowed now weren't even produced at the period of time. The Arctic Cat has used an small automobile engine that is allowed in the park on wheels and on tracks. How can an engine be allowed in the park on wheels but not on tracks? The Yamaha motor in their motorcycles is allowed yet when in a snowmobile isn't allowed. How does science figure that? Its the same engine.

It is interesting that you note the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. threw out the winter use final rule. Don't forget that a case was also heard in U.S. District Court in Wyoming where Yellowstone lies and that federal judge would have upheld the final rule saying that the NPS covered all the issues required in the EIS. Judge Brimmer says the agency thoroughly reviewed and investigated the issues and said the final rule reflected their findings.

You make the case that the NPS didn't follow policy with one District Court judge and I counter with an equal District Court judge that came to the opposite conclusion that the NPS did follow policy. One judge filed their findings before the other could is the only difference.

There you have it I show that an equal judge ruled that the winter use plan that was developed is sound and that is why we are where we are today.

Judge Brimmers ruling can be seen at http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/upload/111008OrderonOlenhouseMotions.pdf


This is very good news. Something needs to be put into place to prevent government-sponsored science from being politically manipulated to discourage inconvenient truths from reaching the general public (let alone the peer-reviewed scientific literature or Congress). In fact, I would surmise that in order for a Democracy to function properly, there must be integrity of information.


YNP4everyone, You are right that another judge, in this case U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer, did indicate he would rule contrary to how Judge Sullivan did. However, does that not lend credence to the contention that politics trumps good science?

It also might raise the question of whether Judge Brimmer's law clerk looked as closely at the matter as did Judge Sullivan's in light of the following from Judge Brimmer's ruling:

The court believes that the NPS thoroughly reviewed and investigated the effects of the final rule on the environment of the parks. The final rule promulgated by the NPS reflects thorough review and investigation. Furthermore, the NPS has been designated as an expert in this area, and should be given wide discretion when discharging its duties. (emphasis added)

Looking at these two opinions, one has to wonder 1) Whether Judge Sullivan made up his finding that "According to NPS's own data, the (winter-use plan) will increase air pollution, exceed the use levels recommended by NPS biologists to protect wildlife, and cause major adverse impacts to the natural soundscape in Yellowstone. Despite this, NPS found that the plan's impacts are wholly 'acceptable,' and utterly fails to explain this incongruous conclusion," or 2) Did Judge Brimmer's clerk not look as closely at the winter-use plan's underlying science?

And you can't overlook that Judge Brimmer noted that many Wyoming residents "have an economic interest in snowmobile use in the parks." Which goes back to the question of whether politics trumps science, no?

Further examination of these two judges and their divergent views on snowmobiles in Yellowstone can be found in Michael J. Yochim's well-researched and well-written book, Yellowstone and the Snowmobile, Locking Horns over National Park Use.

The state and Judge Brimmer hinted at the underlying reasons (for a snowmobile plan) in their legal arguments and in a letter from Brimmer to Superintendent Suzanne Lewis. First, in its brief, the state complained about infringements upon its sovereignty: the snowmobile ban would make it difficult to manage its state trails program and its fish populations in Jackson Lake. Though these concerns are really minor worries (the state has no jurisdiction over Yellowstone or Grand Teton trails, and Grand Teton managers had guaranteed the necessary access to Jackson Lake), the state felt its rights were threatened. Antifederalism is prevalent in Wyoming, and any step the federal agencies take that might threaten that autonomy is closely examined.

Judge Brimmer himself suggested the same reason for Wyoming's persistence in a surprising letter he wrote to Superintendent Lewis shortly after issuing his (2004) decision (that blocked the 2000 snowmobile ban). Although such direct communication between a judge and defendants in his own court strains the impartiality that judges should demonstrate, Brimmer wrote Lewis advocating for a solution acceptable to Wyomingites. He had received a number of letters from state residents suffering economic impacts from Sullivan's decision (in December 2003 to continue the 2000 ban) and complaining about the decision to require guides for most visitors....

The text goes on, citing a portion of Judge Brimmer's letter, and touching on possible reasons for the judge's stance: "Brimmer obviously felt that westerners (especially Wyomingites) were inherently more capable of snowmobile touring on their own than the typical Yellowstone tourist. They did not need Big Brother to watch them as they explored Yellowstone; they should be free to explore independently. The moral for Yellowstone managers was that stakeholders feeling their values threatened -- including two federal judges -- would go to great lengths to defend them."

Mr. Yochim also referenced a legal review of Judge Brimmer's handling of the snowmobile issue, one by legal scholar Jeffrey Bissegger that found that the judge "was breaking new ground in ordering park managers to issue rules that were 'fair and equitable' to all parties. In making his order, Brimmer seemed to step into the legislative world, ordering park managers to make a decision that treated the snowmobile industry and park preservation 'as if they were coequal interests with equivalent claims on NPS's policymaking priorities.' Such equal treatment contradicted the NPS Organic Act, which states that the NPS must preserve its natural, historical, and cultural resources. It never mentions economic interests as something the NPS should consider in crafting its policies."

As for the banning of 2 strokes, I don't believe they were completely banned until 2004, as the Bush administration almost immediately suspended the Clinton's administration's ban when it took office in January 2001.

Also not to be overlooked is that the environmentally preferred alternative reached in the Final Supplemental EIS conducted by the Bush administration's Park Service was the same as that selected by the Clinton administration's Park Service: that a snowmobile ban would be in the best interests of the park's resources.

Your points about motorcycles in summer and "small automobile engines" are well made. As many other comments elsewhere on the Traveler have pointed out, more than a few motorcycles are much noisier than snowmobiles, so why isn't the Park Service doing something about them in protection of soundscapes? It's a good issue to explore.


Just a few thoughts and observations.
Might it be, that many Scientists, Biologists and Professionals (Scholars & Enviromentalists) that are involved in environmental issues involving our National Parks are hired by, paid by, recieve funding by a "Special Interest Group or Organization" or are in the employ of our Federal or State Government which has it's own share of influences. And, might it be assumed, that, most of the time, when asked to investigate a specific circumstance, they are asked to investigate with the ultimate goal being to assertain if there are any detrimental effects resulting from a certain activity or occurrence. And if this is the case, is it possible , if not probable, that they enter with a goal to prove rather disprove. I suggest it could be very difficult to maintain a completely unbiased and objective frame of mind under these circumstances. I know that the requirement for Peer Review is often mentioned in these matters. I'm not sure who or what represents a Peer. If it is us, the common everyday citizen, I do believe Peer Review and Opinions therefrom are often lacking, not given the consideration they deserve or (I believe) not considered worthy of consideration by the Scientists, Biologists and Professionals, due to their origin. It seems to be a situation of "this is our opinion based on the best available science". If you are not a scientist you and your opinion are pretty insignificant when it gets down to the nitty gritty. It's almost trial by jury where the jury are the Scientists, Biologists and Professionals.
Now to clarify. I have the utmost respect for the great majority of Scientists, Biologists and Professionals in general. I found this article to be interesting in that Secretary Salazar is stressing the importance of protecting the integrety of the science and the use thereof in matters affecting government decision making. I am not sure exactly what brought this on or wether he is inferring that there has been "Tainted" scientific opinions in the past or to which side of an issue the "science" was slanted. I think there has. Hopefully it will have a positive influence concerning "Best available science" for now and the future. Particularly where our national parks are concerned. The main thing in matters concerning issues over our National Parks is to maintain a level playing field. No matter the outcome of an issue, it will be a loser for everyone if either side feels they lost because of deceit from the other side. This is true of the science involved as well as the true and complete agenda with which it is associated.

Ron


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.