SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 01 2015, @10:14PM
Ignoring any possible merits of Dr. Lundgren's research, if he knows he is being watched for any excuse to punish him, why does he still forget to fill out his travel paperwork, do government business on private email, connect his personal computer to the network, make questionable jokes, etc.?
As the suspension letter says, he was proven to have violated the rules. Yeah, he can make a case that they are unevenly enforced, but he would have been in a better position had he properly filed travel paperwork, and not just taken random money coming in from a corporation without a travel process started.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday November 01 2015, @11:27PM
Agreed...
Anytime someone posts a suppression of a whistle-blower everyone automatically assumes the guy was a saint and the agency was tyrannical.
The cited website is not likely all that reliable or balanced. I'd like to see the other side of the story. In fact, it should be incumbent upon submitters to at least look for the other side.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 01 2015, @11:39PM
I never assume someone is a saint. At best I expect them to be flawed like a regular person.
Often they are even more flawed than average because well adjusted people generally aren't willing to take the risks that come with going up against authority.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Tuesday November 03 2015, @02:09PM
Oh, everyone's flawed in some way.
But should that matter here? If The Powers That Be (TPTB) suppressed him or his research due to their own agenda, especially if it was against due process, then that's the story here. And discussion of his failures or character flaws starts to look like an ad-hominem argument against him, of exactly the sort that people use when they're trying to distract from the real issue.
According to the summary, he was suspended 'in connection with two events'. Please let's not get bogged down in the petty, localised, unimportant one when we should be thinking (and doing something!) about possible corruption in a major government department!
[sig redacted]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 02 2015, @06:58PM
The cited website is not likely all that reliable or balanced. I'd like to see the other side of the story. In fact, it should be incumbent upon submitters to at least look for the other side.
It certainly seems a bit late in the game to try to suppress the neonicotinoid link. Seems like pretty general knowledge at this point and I see new stories about it at least once a week.