The United States government being influenced by big business interests is not a new phenomenon. For every positive step forward, there are very frequently disturbing steps backwards. A few months ago the EPA offered up steps in the right direction in regards to the use of pesticides around honeybees. Around the same time, Dr. Jonathan Lundgren, a successful Senior Research Entomologist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Research Service (USDA-ARS), says his research pointing out potentially serious problems with big agricultural pesticides has led to unprecedented harassment from his superiors.
Dr. Lundgren is a Senior Research Entomologist GS-14 (Lead Scientist and Lab Supervisor) for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Research Service (USDA-ARS). Dr. Lundgren’s cutting-edge research has drawn national attention for his findings that certain widely-used pesticides (neonicotinoid insecticides or “neonics”) adversely affect pollinators, and that industrialized agriculture practices, such as the use of genetically modified crops, harm soils and beneficial insects. His research and numerous peer-reviewed publications have implications for the agribusiness industry that the USDA must often regulate.
[...]
On August 3, 2015, the USDA imposed a 14-day suspension on Dr. Lundgren in a decision issued by Plains Area Associate Director Dr. John McMurtry. This was a reduction of the 30-day suspension originally proposed by Dr. Lundgren’s direct supervisor, Dr. Sharon Papiernik, on May 7, 2015. This reduction had the effect of denying Dr. Lundgren immediate access to the Merit Systems Protection Board as it fell one day short of the MSPB direct jurisdiction limits.
Dr. Lundgren’s scientific research has pointed to real problems with pesticides and their effects on monarch butterfly populations. He claims that these workplace infractions are a case of an employer using protocol markers in an unprecedented way—leading Dr. Lundgren to believe that these punishments are about his research and not his conduct in the workplace.
According to Ruch, ARS scientists routinely assume they have de facto permission to present at such prestigious fora. The typical procedure is to file paperwork requesting travel, assume it will be granted, and embark on the trip. In his whistleblower's narrative, Lundgren acknowledges that he filed his paperwork at the last minute, but adds that such situations are not uncommon—he notes three other colleagues who traveled under similar conditions within six weeks of this trip.
But when Lundgren landed in Washington, he learned that permission for the trip had been denied—and that because of the denial he was officially absent without leave (AWOL) from his post in Brookings. Meanwhile, the National Academy of Sciences and Pennsylvania No-Till Alliance had paid for and booked his travel—a routine situation, says PEER's Ruch. But since permission for the trip had been denied, Lundberg was in violation of ARS rules for accepting travel expenses without prior approval and obliged to pay them back to the conference organizers out of his own pocket. In all, Ruch says, Lundgren's trip to present his research to the NAS and Pennsylvania No-Till Alliance cost him roughly $3,000 in out-of-pocket travel expenses and lost wages.
[My emphasis.]
According to Lundgren, there has never been any reason given for why his lecture trip was denied. Lundgren also says the same arbitrary tightening of rules and regulations can be applied to his other “infraction” of publishing in a scientific journal without proper clearance, where Lundgren says his supervisor did not flag any parts of his paper as “sensitive”:
The typical procedure for publications at ARS is as follows: (1) The scientist submits the draft to his/her manager by email; (2) The manager sometimes suggests revisions; (3) Unless the manager flags the paper for additional scrutiny or specifically prohibits the scientist for submitting for publication until (s)he adopts all of the suggested revisions, the manager instructs the secretary to submit the paper into the ARIS system, and the scientist submits the paper to the journal for publication. Typically, the scientist receives no confirmation of final approval or notice that the paper was entered into ARIS; this is presumed. In other words, if the manager’s response suggests revisions without any further caveats, this is typically a green light for the scientist to adopt appropriate suggestions and then submit the article for publication without further consultation.
Lundgren goes on to say that historically, as long as none of the information in the paper is pointed out as sensitive or potentially sensitive, the resulting exchange is considered a tacit agreement that the scientist can proceed with publishing. Lundgren says besides his research pointing to the harm certain pesticides cause monarch butterflies, his new research has brought up uncomfortable questions concerning RNA-acting pesticides—pesticides that claim that they can change the genetics of specific unwanted insects without harming anything else. This research is notable since large and powerful companies like Monsanto have been spending a lot of money pursuing this science.
As Monsanto's new technology makes its way through the regulatory system, the questions raised by Lundgren are slowing it down. In late October, the USDA quietly greenlighted Monsanto's RNAi-engineered corn strain designed to kill an insect called the corn rootworm—the first RNAi pesticide product the agency has approved. Because of the odd system the United States uses to regulate new GM crops (explained here and here), the USDA review process doesn't directly assess the possible impacts that novel pesticides might have on ecosystems, the topic of Lundgren's research.
That task falls to the Environmental Protection Agency—and the EPA appears to be taking the questions raised by Lundgren quite seriously. Days after the USDA gave Monsanto's new corn the thumbs-up, the EPA granted it only "limited registration," which does not allow commercial sale and distribution of the novel corn or its seed. The EPA would not comment on why it declined to fully register the product.
[My emphasis.]
According to Lundgren’s complaint:
These actions were not justified, and the discipline was not proportionate to any perceived offense. In addition, the suspension constitutes retaliation for his protected disclosure: a formal scientific integrity complaint Dr. Lundgren submitted in September 2014 that detailed numerous ways USDA managers had abused their authority and improperly interfered with Dr. Lundgren’s research and professional activities in violation of Agency regulations.
Whether Lundgren is a whistleblower who is being harassed because of big money interests or an employee bristling due to a workplace dispute (and probably both), the one thing that is not in dispute is his scientific research. As this story continues to evolve it is important to remember that the integrity of the science and research done by men and women like Lundgren, regardless of their personalities, is important and in the service of us all and we should heed their findings. If the USDA-ARS feels that this is simply a workplace issue that’s fine only if they acknowledge and apply the real science being done.