.
thats a good point, ive had stuff not come up on bloodwork that shouldve
Are you sure that wasn't a technician working for a consultant under contract to the USGS? As a biologist for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, found this practice to be nearly the norm.
That is what I read CMI. Not a tech working for a contract consultant but a lab tech employed by the USGS. I suppose it could be as you suggest but it was not in evidence. Thank you for your reply. So you are "the horse's mouth" in that you are familiar with how things work in labs? What is the advantage of contracting that work out? Save on cost because you don't pay benefits to contractors? Are they less accountable or more? Are they certified or bonded? As a biologist what is the most important/exciting/substantive
thing you've discovered doing that job if I might ask? Why? Happy Sunday m'dear! :)
I was in marine habitat conservation. My principal area of interest was in beach restoration project impacts to coral reefs. This is because where I live, coral reefs are ancient and irreplaceable. Beach projects lift and move sediment; some of which ends up being dumped on, drifting onto, or settling out onto hard corals. The last project I worked on would have directly buried a reported 55 acres of nearshore reef and would have destroyed or degraded uncalculated acreage of offshore reef. The local sponsor's (Broward County) consultant provided us with this information. Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to provide its own, independent assessment of impacts based on "field studies conduced by the US Fish and Wildlife Service," not consultant's reports. I was forbidden to conduct these studies but told instead, by my supervisor, to write my report based on the information provided.
The Government makes its money collecting taxes. Beach projects increase the value of oceanfront property and therefore local government taxes. The additional economic activity generated by coastal development increases revenue for the federal government. In such cases as in the one I have described, conservation would have potentially reduced tax revenue on several levels. And, there was already a grassroots movement to reduce the scope of the project. Our independent report would probably have added momentum to this movement and that's why I (I believe) was forbidden to provide one. Thus, in my view, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (google it) is nothing more than window dressing or smoke and mirrors designed fool the public into thinking that those who voted it in have a strong environmental ethic.
This was the finale to a long struggle, just one in a series of such projects. I was, in the end, forced into early retirement, for the most part for insisting that the Fish and Wildlife Service do its job according to the law. Peter Jennings of ABC Nightly News was about to do a story on the Broward County beach project, but then the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center happened and that obviously took precedence. It's probably a good thing I never had the opportunity to go public with this story. Dessenters are severely punished and I'd had enough.
Condolences m'dear. What an awful experience. To be FORBIDDEN from doing your job as you saw fit because of money? Seriously? Thank you for your years of service on behalf of our planet. I cannot even almost imagine how disgusted and disappointed you were. How about writing a book? Did you sign a lifetime non-disclosure agreement when you went to work for them? Could they sue you for telling about your experiences? I'm serious. I think it sucks big time and someone on the inside needs to bring attention to it. I don't know how vulnerable you would be to a lawsuit but I for one would buy that book. I would think you would have a lot of support from other likeminded caring people. Would enlisting the aid of Greenpeace be possible? They've done some awesome things . Thank you for sharing your experience with us. I had no idea. Looking at something from the outside never gives a true picture. Are you familiar with NOAA? Is that agency reputable or phony too? Happy July 4th Monday CMI! And thank you again.
I think that is very scary pearl. Faking records. I mean the wrong information or lack of information
could conceivably kill someone. Thank you for your reply! :)
I would guess there's a lot of graft involved if they're Gov. workers trying to protect their paychecks.
Money talks. Sadly. Thank you for your reply BSurf. :)
Thank YOU Rosie. I appreciate your interest. Employees within NOAA, the Florida DNR, the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior, Save the Reefs, Environmental Defense, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) etc. were on my side; but the people with final authority are ones who control the money ("Scum rises to the top"). The Army Corps of Engineers, a principle project proponent, seems to have "absolute power" in this regard. Public outcry means little to those who hold the purse strings.
I cannot be sued for keeping my integrity. I can be harassed through the IRS, the FBI, and only God know who else. You can subscribe to PEER's newsletter for more information. See their website. You might also like to read Science Under Siege, a book about similar cases.
I have to pack for a trip right now. Let's keep in touch.
Hello Rosie:
I dunno WHY 10% of us shoot heroin, beat their children, or do their job badly. But, 90% of us DON'T do those things, and we RELY on those odds to keep us safe.
excon
This is why evidence that was destroyed during the testing process should never be entered into discovery for a criminal prosecution. It's too risky.
Aside from that, we know the results are correct through further testing. Academically, one typically requires further confirmation of one's findings; legally, not so much.
The problem with this particular individual could as easily have been that they were unqualified for their position as it could have been some other motive for obscuring the truth. If people realized how many truly unqualified, incompetent workers there are in positions like this, society would quickly demand we revisit the qualifications process as the situational outcomes of such malfeasance are so far reaching, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say people lives are on the line.
Have a good journey CMI. I'll be here. I would like to keep in touch with you
very much!
So I only have to worry about 10% of the lab techs faking results? Which 10%? The 10% that affects me personally? Thank you for your reply excon. Did you read CMI's experience? I think you will find it valuable to do so if you haven't already! :)
Thank you for your reply FNR and Happy July 4th Monday! :)
Interesting about sediment being a danger to coral reefs. Yet one of the most amazing specimens of coral reef discovered to date is near the mouth of the Amazon river in the murky, sediment-filled runoff from that estuary. That seems to fly in the face of the "common knowledge" in the biology textbooks. Seems to me that science is still just as affected by "old wives tales" as it ever was. Just curious as to how a seasoned marine biologist assesses that "discovery"?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/220416-Amazon-coral-reef-Brazil-ocean-river-fish/
Adaptive radiation. There are Oculina sp. corals here that are branching and lack symbiotic algae. They too would be resistant to sedimentary impacts. Little sediment would stay on them and, as they typically live in areas with a regular current, any settled sediment would quickly be swept off. The slow growing, relatively flat brain and star corals that thrive in calmer, clearer water are susceptible to sedimentation and would be an irreplaceable loss.
I just scanned that article you provided. As far as I could tell in the rush that I am in, the only corals found there are gorgonians, soft, fast-growing corals, which stand nearly vertical and are highly branched. My concerns were for hard corals.
Ah!
