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.
Whistleblowers describe retaliatory action after they refused to cover up dangers
One of the whistleblowers, William Irwin, who possesses doctorates in molecular biology and biochemistry as well as board certifications in toxicology, says that he was transferred out of the new chemicals division after he refused to change reports, including one that cautioned about a chemical potentially causing immune, neurological and reproductive problems.
Meanwhile, whistleblower Martin Phillips said that the experience was traumatic, from the hostility he received from supervisors to having his professional work changed and worrying about whether he should inform authorities about what was happening.
“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,” he added.
He explained that on one occasion, a report he wrote about a chemical causing birth defects and miscarriages in rats was deleted and replaced with another one that did not include this important fact.
After asking for his original work to be restored, he found himself being reassigned to a different part of the agency and says he 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 told ProPublica.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.