Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday November 01 2015, @07:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the punished-for-disagreement dept.

One of the top entomologists within the U.S. Department of Agriculture is fighting a suspension for publishing research about adverse effects on monarch butterflies from widely-used neonicotinoid insecticides (or "neonics"). He is also being punished for a travel paperwork irregularity for when he made an appearance before a panel of the National Academy of Sciences. His legal challenge is in the form of a whistleblower complaint filed on his behalf today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Dr. Jonathan Lundgren is a Senior Research Entomologist and Lab Supervisor for the USDA Agriculture Research Service based in South Dakota. His cutting-edge research has drawn national attention and international recognition. He has worked for USDA for eleven years with great success—until recently.

On August 3, 2015, the USDA imposed a 14-day (reduced from 30 days) suspension on him in connection with two events:

        --Publication of a manuscript by Dr. Lundgren on the non-target effects of clothianidin on monarch butterflies in the scientific peer-reviewed journal The Science of Nature; and
        --An error in Dr. Lundgren's travel authorization for his invited presentation to a panel of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as to a USDA stakeholder group.

This is what suppression looks like.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday November 01 2015, @07:31PM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday November 01 2015, @07:31PM (#257231) Journal

    Man -- whoever it is who wants this research suppressed, just found the best way to make sure everyone knows about it. Power never learns, which is good.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Sunday November 01 2015, @07:44PM

    by Nerdfest (80) on Sunday November 01 2015, @07:44PM (#257238)

    We went through this in Canada as well with our current (very soon to be former) fascist/autocratic government. It was pro corporation, anti-environmentalism, and anti-science. I'm guessing the big factor is the corporate control of the government that seems to be so wide-spread in the US government these days.

    We really some sort of severe penalty for any political or executive government interference in anything that benefits the public. Something with fines *and* jail time.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 01 2015, @08:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 01 2015, @08:45PM (#257250)

      Just like researchers have found that fracking is not the cause of earthquakes where there were none before it started.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 01 2015, @09:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 01 2015, @09:51PM (#257264)

      Yes, but who enforces punishment? I guess that is what the separation of powers was supposed to solve, but it seems that political clout still gains exceptions.

    • (Score: 3, Disagree) by Grishnakh on Monday November 02 2015, @02:43AM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday November 02 2015, @02:43AM (#257345)

      We really some sort of severe penalty for any political or executive government interference in anything that benefits the public. Something with fines *and* jail time.

      How exactly do you propose to do that? It's impossible to prosecute the executive branch or put them in jail. The other branches have zero power to do so, because the executive (as you might tell by their name) is the one that has the power to execute tasks, and is in control of the military and the Justice Department. You think you're going to get the Executive Branch to prosecute itself?

      As Andrew Jackson said when he executed the Indian Removal Act even though it was ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, "Mr. Marshall has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it."

      • (Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Monday November 02 2015, @05:56PM

        by Hyperturtle (2824) on Monday November 02 2015, @05:56PM (#257611)

        I agree it is difficult to get the executive branch to vote against their own health care, pay raises, or anti-corruption investigations (look what scott walker did in Wisconsin for a good example of how not to be seen while showing off how to do it).

        People should not vote for those types, but I guess that is silly to think that the best person will be elected.