Three years ago, a small group of government scientists made disturbing accusations.
They say that during President Donald Trump’s administration, EPA managers began pressuring them to produce new chemicals that looked safer than they were. They were encouraged to remove evidence of harm from chemicals, including cancer, miscarriages and neurological problems, from their reports — and in some cases, their managers themselves removed the information, they said.
After the scientists fought back, they received negative performance reviews and three of them were removed from their positions in EPA’s new chemicals division and reassigned elsewhere in the agency.
On Wednesday, the EPA Inspector General announce discovery Some of the treatment experienced by three of the scientists – Martin Phillips, Sarah Gallagher and William Owen – amounted to retaliation.
Three reports issued by the inspector general confirm that negative performance reviews, reassignments and the denial of awards that could be used for cash or time off were retaliatory. They also detailed personal attacks from supervisors, calling them “stupid,” “Piranha” and”cupping device”.
The report calls on the EPA to take “appropriate corrective action” in response to the findings. In one case, the inspector general noted that supervisors who violate the Whistleblower Protection Act should be suspended for at least three days.
The report focused solely on the accusations of retaliation. The inspector general is expected to release a report on the whistleblower science allegations in the future.
After the report was released, EPA Assistant Administrator Michal Freedhoff wrote in an email to staff at the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention that the office planned to host a Manager in the “Scientific Integrity and Whistleblower Protection Act Review Training” office. Friedhoff also wrote that the office is “reviewing these reports to determine whether additional action is warranted.”
In a statement to ProPublica, the EPA linked issues raised in the report to Trump. “The incidents covered by these reports began during the previous administration, when political leadership exerted intense pressure on professional managers and scientists in EPA’s new chemicals program to review and approve new chemicals more quickly,” the agency wrote. chemicals.
A spokesman for the Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A Trump re-election could see further disruption to the agency’s scientific work. Plan 2025 is a radical conservative policy plan to overhaul the government and make it easier to fire scientists who raise concerns about industry influence.
“I’m worried about the future because some groups are pushing for changes to the civil service so that I could be fired and replaced by a non-scientist,” said Phillips, a chemist. The public version of the inspector general’s report redacted the names of all EPA employees, including scientists, but Phillips, Gallagher and Owen confirmed that the investigation focused on their complaints.
Phillips said it was a traumatic experience for him as his job changed, he faced hostility from supervisors and struggled with whether and how to alert authorities. In 2019, he said, he began resisting pressure from his bosses to try to explain why his calculations were correct and resist their requests to change his findings.
In one case, someone deleted a report he wrote indicating that a chemical caused Miscarriage and birth defects in rats and replaced it with another report that omitted this key message. After Phillips requested reinstatement of the original report, he was relieved of his duties in the EPA’s new chemicals division and assigned to other parts of the agency.
“I became a pariah,” Phillips told ProPublica about a nearly year-long feud with managers at the new chemicals unit. “I was losing sleep. I was afraid of going to work. Every time I had to meet with my supervisor or another member of my team, I was worried. It made me question whether I wanted to continue my job.
He and other scientists say the inspector general’s findings vindicate them.
“It’s gratifying and a relief,” said Owen, who has worked at the EPA for 15 years.
Owen, who holds a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology and is three board certified in toxicology, transferred to the agency from the new chemistry department after refusing to change several reports, including one on a certain chemical. A division of what he calls “existing chemicals” he suspects caused Reproductive, immune and neurological problems. Owen said his supervisor later downgraded his rating during an annual performance review because he refused to sign off on the review.
The department where Owen and other scientists work plays a key role within the EPA. Companies developing new chemicals must obtain permission from the EPA to bring them to market. If the agency finds that they may pose an unreasonable risk to health or the environment, they must be regulated by law, which may involve limiting or banning their production or use.
Irving thought he was particularly suited to work on new chemicals. “I had a strong ability to look at a chemical and figure out its toxicity based on its structure.” When he was transferred, he said, “I was assigned to do things I didn’t want to do.”
The scientists filed the first of six complaints to the EPA inspector general in June 2021 after being forced to quit their jobs evaluating new chemicals. industry pressure and pointing fingers at career officials still working at the EPA is a theme A total of 10 parts in the series I was published in The Intercept. Three career scientists named in the complaint subsequently left the EPA. The agency also ordered reforms to address whistleblower allegations of corruption, including the creation of two internal science policy advisory committees aimed at strengthening scientific integrity.
“These whistleblowers were beaten, ostracized and punished, and all they did was try to protect us,” said Kayla Bennett, science policy director at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which helps scientists draft complaints to the government. .
The inspector general’s report said regulators defended their actions, claiming whistleblowers took an overly conservative approach in their evaluations and that, in some cases, criticism relayed by regulators from companies submitting chemicals was valid. . One executive said scientists “should make compromises to complete the evaluation of new chemicals.”
The inspector general released two other reports but did not substantiate the retaliation claims made by two other scientists.
Bennett said she is particularly concerned about how the outcome of the upcoming presidential election might affect whistleblowers. “If there was another Trump administration, I would be shocked for them,” she said.
If Trump follows through on some of the promises in the 2025 plan, the job security of the whistleblower and all EPA scientists will become even more fragile. Project 2025 specifically calls for new chemicals to be approved quickly and proposes that all employees whose work involves federal agency policies would be made at-will, making them more susceptible to layoffs.
Although Trump tried to distance himself from the effort, saying “I don’t know what the hell this is,” ProPublica reported that 29 of 36 speakers featured in Project 2025 training videos Work for him in some capacity.
All three scientists found to have been victims of retaliation said they feared the underlying issues they raised were not adequately addressed and could worsen.
Scientists say they remain concerned about industry pressure on the EPA’s chemical approval process.
“It’s been four years since we first started raising concerns about what was going on, and we haven’t seen a solution,” Gallagher said. “We cannot guarantee that the concerns we have been raising will be addressed.”
Still, Gallagher said she thinks the inspector general’s investigation may begin to ease the burden she’s felt since reporting to the EPA. “I hope I can feel like my work is valued again,” she said.
