5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
July, 08 2010, 10:14am EDT
Contact:
Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337
Obama's Orphaned Science Integrity and Transparency Pledge
Promised Rules for Scientific Whistleblowers One Year Overdue and Counting
WASHINGTON
Tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary of the date when new rules to
protect federal scientists and science from political interference were
supposed to have been in place. As a result, federal scientists
continue to report the same sort of suppression and skewing of
scientific and technical reports by agency managers that occurred under
the George W. Bush administration, according to Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
On March 9, 2009,
President Obama issued an Executive Memorandum to all federal
departments and agencies declaring his intent to adopt policies that
protect scientific integrity. The accompanying White House fact sheet
described the action as addressing "one of the President's key campaign
commitments on science policy, which was to 'restore scientific
integrity in government decision making.'" That order directed the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop proposed
policies for Presidential action by July 9, 2009. That deadline has long
since lapsed with no new due date and without a cogent explanation for
the delay.
"The atmosphere under Obama for federal scientists
remains largely unchanged from the Bush era," stated PEER Executive
Director Jeff Ruch, whose organization works with federal scientists
seeking to remedy scientific misconduct and political obfuscation.
"Federal agency science is still manipulated for political reasons
largely because there are still no rules against it."
The
muddled federal response to the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico illustrates a lack of scientific transparency and candor in
agency decision-making. Key examples include -
- Without any
scientific undergirding, EPA approved widespread application of oil
dispersants deep underwater, despite the fact that these chemicals were
designed for surface application. EPA even lacked baseline information
about oil droplet size, the information it would need to measure just
how effective the dispersant is at breaking up the oil slicks; - The
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration has flip-flopped on
release of scientific observations about the size and nature of swelling
underwater oil plumes; and - EPA also lacks information about
dioxin and other toxic byproducts of burning large expanses of oil in
the Gulf.
"The BP spill shows Obama officials displaying
scientific opacity, not transparency in futile attempts at damage
control and news management," Ruch added. "The Obama White House is
seemingly so devoted to message control that it cannot tolerate
discordant, off-message transparency."
In addition, Obama
policies still embrace many of the hallmarks of what had been Bush
practices, such as gag orders on scientists, allowing industry to
control information submitted to the government (for example, much of
the data oil companies submit to the former Minerals Management Service
cannot be circulated even for purposes of peer review) and resisting
Freedom of Information Act requests for technical information.
See the 2009
Obama Executive Memorandum
Look at
continuing absence of rules against manipulation of science
Note the
prevalence of gag orders on federal workers
View how MMS is
bound by industry proprietary data rules
Revisit how EPA
tries to shield scientific debate from public scrutiny
PEER protects public employees who protect our environment. We are a service organization for environmental and public health professionals, land managers, scientists, enforcement officers, and other civil servants dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values. We work with current and former federal, state, local, and tribal employees.
LATEST NEWS
Pope Leo Delivers 'Rebuke' of Pete Hegseth With Anti-War Palm Sunday Sermon
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Mar 29, 2026
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
Keep Reading
Show Less
As Trump Prepares Iran Ground Assault, Expert Warns He's 'Run Out of Options' for Victory
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
Mar 29, 2026
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Critics Blast 'Clueless' New York Times for Dismissive Coverage of Historic No Kings Protests
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
Mar 29, 2026
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular