Inspector General: Interior Department Manipulated Science to Justify Gulf Moratorium by Kevin Mooney 16 Nov 2011 post a comment Share This: “Scientific misconduct” within key federal agencies has given rise to counterproductive regulatory policies that further burden an already beleaguered economy and erode the public trust, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) warns in a letter addressed to the White House. At issue, is a report from the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI)’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) that describes how the agency manipulated and altered a 30-day report from the National Academy of Engineers. Sen. Vitter and several House colleagues, including Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), called for the OIG investigation in response to allegations that officials with Interior had deliberately misrepresented scientific opinion on the merits of the deepwater drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico. “We’ve seen facts manipulated and science ignored across the administration while they’ve developed policies with huge negative effects on the economy,” Sen. Vitter said. “We want the public to be aware of the administration’s misconduct, but we also want agencies to be transparent and explain their methods.” The letter from Vitter co-authored by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.). is addressed to John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, is co-authored by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.). “The IG investigation showed that not only had Interior violated the Information Quality Act (IQA), but there was direct involvement by the White House, specifically Carol Browner, to manipulate the summary documentation in violation of peer-review protocol,” the letter says. “...The investigation revealed blatant political influence, on what should have been an independent scientific assessment, to inaccurately represent the views of a particular team of scientists.” In response to the explosion of British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig on April 20, 2010, Interior declared a moratorium on deepwater drilling, which it extended for six months that following May 27 in tandem with the 30 day report. An engineer who was asked to participate in the peer review process of the report’s recommendations sent a letter to Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. Vitter and Sen. Mary Landrieu (R-La.) making it clear that he and his colleagues did not officially endorse the moratorium. The letter was co-signed by other engineers and reads in part as follows: “A group of those named in the Secretary of Interior’s Report, “INCREASED SAFETY MEASURES FOR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF” dated May 27, 2010 are concerned that our names are connected with the [deepwater drilling] moratorium as proposed in the executive summary of the report. There is an implication that we have somehow agreed to or “peer reviewed” the main recommendation of that report. This is not the case.” [emphasis is included in the original letter] Luke Bolar, a spokesman for Vitter, identified White House Climate Change Advisor Carol Browner as a key figure responsible for manipulating and distorting the scientific language. “Carol Browner is one of the leading voices of junk science,” he said. “She was the one who changed the summary language just hours before the 30 day review was received and added a sentence to make it appear as the engineers endorsed the moratorium when they hadn’t. That’s why we needed the IG investigation.” Early in his term, Obama issued a “Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity” that emphasized the importance of sound science in shaping and directing public policy, Vitter, Inhofe and Issa point out in their letter to the White House. “Obama Science Advisor John Holdren has said that the Administration would make decisions based on the best possible science because, as the President has stated, ‘The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decision.’ Yet, it is clear that the Obama Administration cannot be trusted, as we continue to uncover more and more examples of faulty science being used as the justification for policies and increased regulations that will destroy jobs and harm our economy,” Sen. Inhofe observed. The letter also notes that “Public trust in federal scientific work is waning...”and directs a series of questions to Holdren. They are as follows: 1. When this IG report became public, who did you contact at Interior to discuss scientific integrity and allegations that Interior violated peer reviewed protocol? 2. Did you speak directly with Secretary Salazar or anyone else identified in the IG report? 3. What was the content of your conversations with the President and Carol Browner, as well as any other White House officials? 4. What firewalls did you put in place at the White House to prevent future political influence from interfering with an independent scientific report? 5. What actions were taken at both Interior and the White House, or otherwise government-wide, as a direct result of your efforts following the IG’s findings? 6. What are your suggestions for strengthening the Information Quality Act in light of this incident specifically? 7. What are your suggestions for strengthening the Information Quality Act in light of this incident? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also comes in for criticism. In April, a National Research Council (NRC) panel of independent scientists found the quality of work that was being done by the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) chemical assessment program to be below par. They concluded EPA’s scientific work did not support EPA’s scientific conclusions. They found the problem to be one that is recurring at the agency. The NRC panel concluded: Overall, the committee found that EPA's draft assessment was not prepared in a logically consistent fashion, lacks clear links to an underlying conceptual framework, and does not sufficiently document methods and criteria used to identify evidence for selecting and evaluating studies. Moreover, many of the general problems with the EPA formaldehyde health assessment have been identified by other Research Council committees that reviewed other EPA chemical assessments in recent years. For instance, there have been recurring problems with clarity and transparency of the methods, even though the documents have grown considerably in length. The committee concluded that if the methodologic issues are not addressed, future assessments may suffer from the same general problems highlighted in this report."