This article is republished from SciLight, an independent science policy publication on Substack.
Yesterday, Congress held a hearing titled, “Holding the Biden-Harris EPA Accountable for Radical Rush-to-Green Spending.” We can all guess the point of this hearing from that title alone. Suffice it to say it is probably not the intention of the majority on the committee to gather new information to formulate policy action. We have an inkling they might have started with their bellicose conclusion with whatever testimony there is to follow. While there are some legitimate concerns when it comes to ensuring Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funds are distributed appropriately (e.g., to underserved communities in need), this title makes it clear that the House majority hates spending money on anything the Biden-Harris Administration is implementing, particularly anything considered green.
Will the witness please come forward?
There was only one witness for yesterday’s hearing. Perhaps another indication that information gathering isn’t the point of this exercise so much as partisan attacks. Testifying yesterday was EPA’s Inspector General (IG), Sean O’Donnell – a Trump appointee who once served as acting IG for the DOD and EPA at the same time due to the former president firing so many IGs. O’Donnell has been accused by EPA staff of creating a hostile work environment, particularly for women and staff of color, and showing partisan favor. He has denied these claims and an investigation into them has never been conducted. So, he is still in the IG’s position and is testifying in that capacity.
Most of Mr. O’Donnell’s testimony concerns the spending of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding. To summarize in a few words, he is highly critical that the IRA doesn’t directly include money for his office to conduct oversight of the IRA programs. Of course, if Congress wanted to have designated funding for OIG oversight of the IRA programs at the EPA, they could have included that in the legislation. So, while the criticism is of the EPA, it is also of Congress.
In any case, the “Radical Rush to Green Spending” is essentially that the appropriated funds from the IRA are being used and the OIG wants a piece….
Why not throw in criticism of the Scientific Integrity Office for fun?
In his testimony, O’Donnell notes that his office just released a set of reports detailing allegations of retaliation against EPA scientists who expressed differing scientific opinions on new chemical risk assessments. Retaliation against scientists for expressing a differing scientific opinion is a violation of the EPA’s scientific integrity policy. The EPA has one of the most highly developed Scientific Integrity (SI) programs of the federal science agencies.
Interestingly, the incidents in question occurred during the Trump Administration and were allegations of retaliation by political appointees against scientists at the EPA. Not sure how that fits the hearing title as it isn’t about the Biden-Harris Administration. Nevertheless, on page 5 of the testimony, this paragraph is included:
As another example, the EPA has continued to resist the OIG’s important oversight role in protecting scientific integrity at the EPA. Just this week, we issued a series of reports addressing allegations from five EPA scientists who reported retaliation for expressing differing scientific opinions in chemical assessments. These investigations underscore the indispensable role of the OIG in protecting scientific integrity at the EPA as the only independent resource in the Agency empowered to investigate these matters without fear of interference. Yet the EPA continues to resist revising coordination procedures between the IG and its Scientific Integrity Program to require the prompt reporting to the OIG of political interference by senior agency officials and other misconduct.
Actually, the EPA has a specific set of procedures for coordination with the OIG. That procedure is the first topic on the scientific integrity webpage under the procedures tab.
Mr. O’Donnell states that the SI Program is resisting including prompt reporting of violations in the procedures. That’s puzzling because the very first part of the procedure says that violations reported to the EPA Scientific Integrity Official will be reported to the OIG within seven days via the OIG Hotline. Seems pretty prompt so what more is he asking?
It also is very odd that the OIG has reviewed scientific integrity violation cases and, from those reviews, chosen to criticize career officials who are trying to ensure strong scientific integrity is maintained within the EPA. Why isn’t the OIG investigating the political officials of the Trump administration who were the root of the scientific integrity violations? For example, where is the investigation into former Deputy Director of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention David Fischer who interfered in chemical risk assessments? Mr. O’Donnell seems to have targeted the wrong individuals in his testimony.
Representative Paul Tonko (NY-D) certainly understood that career officials at EPA should be praised for their work on scientific integrity. At yesterday’s hearing, Tonko supported the EPA Scientific Integrity Office (SIO) for their efforts to ensure an assessment of the toxic chemical, PFBS, politically interfered with, was pulled, amended using the best available science, and then republished.
Representative Tonko also questioned O’Donnell to ensure that the retaliation cases the OIG just released occurred under the Trump administration.
Representative Tonko: Mr. O’Donnell, unfortunately, these reports are heavily redacted, and the timing of events, and whether or not allegations were substantiated, is not entirely clear. So, it appears that all of the substantiated allegations are related to incidents that occurred under the last administration. Is that correct?
Mr. O’Donnell: Ummm. The retaliatory acts, uh, with respect to those three individuals occurred, I think in 2020.
Representative Tonko: I also understand that you did not substantiate the allegations of retaliation by EPA under the current administration. Is that correct?
Mr. O’Donnell: Um. We did not… We did not substantiate any allegations of retali…, of direct retaliation, um, after 2020.
When should the OIG get involved in SI?
The OIG and SIO have very different roles in agencies and, therefore, should coordinate as called for in the policy but independently fulfill their responsibilities. While the OIG office has expertise in matters of oversight to detect and prevent fraud, waste, abuse, and misconduct in agencies – the OIG does not hold expertise in science or scientific integrity. The SIO is uniquely positioned with staff who understand the scientific process, research and scientific integrity. While each office investigates wrongdoing, the types of wrongdoing they investigate are unique to each office and require a different set of expertise for appropriate adjudication.
There also may be unique cases that require the OIG’s involvement. For example, if the head of an agency or high-level political appointee is involved in a violation of scientific integrity, the OIG may need to coordinate with the SIO in the investigation. This is simply due to the fact that the OIG may be able to engage senior officials, particularly political appointees, more effectively in specific circumstances.
The two offices should coordinate only when necessary. Staff may be deterred from speaking with the SIO if they fear that information will be shared with the OIG. Therefore, it is important that the OIG trust that the SIO will act in good faith to follow agency procedure on coordination.
Why is the EPA OIG attacking the EPA SIO?
The answer to this question is not entirely clear. It is even less clear how this sideswipe on scientific integrity relates to the politically motivated criticism of the EPA in this hearing.
In investigations of misconduct, there are certainly going to be disagreements and tension. Is there misconduct? Who has the lead? How can it best be handled? What action will have the most impact in terms of accountability and meeting the agency’s mission? None of these are easy questions to answer nor are they quick. Opinions can be quick, evidence and action less so.
Strong implementation of scientific integrity policy is a really important topic. Because EPA is a leader in science policy, how they address violations takes on even greater importance – in the hopes that other agencies will learn from their efforts. And coordination with the OIG can be an important element of that implementation as the EPA procedures clearly indicate.
However, scientific integrity is not synonymous with waste, fraud, and abuse. Nor is it the same as research misconduct. Scientific integrity is about preventing political interference in the scientific process and the communication of scientific products. There are distinct roles for the SI Official and for the OIG without assuming one supersedes the other. Coordination and communication are necessary, and one should admit, difficult because these are difficult issues.
Raising issues of scientific integrity in a clearly partisan political hearing regarding the spending of IRA funds is unlikely to make coordination better or strengthen the implementation of scientific integrity policies. Nor is criticizing the career staff who are trying to strengthen scientific integrity at the agency. So, here is an idea, why not make it a non-partisan topic?