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: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday November 01 2015, @07:31PM
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.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Sunday November 01 2015, @07:44PM
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
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
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
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
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.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by zugedneb on Sunday November 01 2015, @08:50PM
Over the years I have come across articles, some linked from /. , saying that monsanto employees ended up in bureaucratic positions in the USDA...
http://slashdot.org/tag/monsanto [slashdot.org]
also, just google for "usda monsanto", and have a look at the hits...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Sunday November 01 2015, @09:08PM
In this case I suspect the dead hand of Bayer AG, one of the largest manufacturers.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(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.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @01:47AM
No, this is what your stupid comments look like. Go look into PEER [wikipedia.org]'s background and tell me you think this is a corporate controlled puppet organization. Perhaps the good Doctor abuses his position. Perhaps he doesn't. But in your usual manner, you blindly take the side that just "feels" right to you and facts be damned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @05:25PM
It seems some people have forgotten elementary school science.
Butterflies come from caterpillars. Caterpillars come from butterflies. They are kind of the same thing really. Caterpillars are critters that mostly eat plants, including crops. Crops are plants we care about. We use poison to kill critters that eat our crops.
Monarchs do not provide significant value in the ecosystem. We have a strange obsession with them because we tend to think they are pretty. They are crappy pollinators, they don't provide decent food for anything, and they aren't needed for milkweed control.
It would be unsurprising to discover that bees too are affected by these pesticides. That would actually matter. Bees have value, unlike butterflies. Predatory insects also have value. Want to show that pesticides cause harm? Pick a valuable insect, not a useless one.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Monday November 02 2015, @05:55PM
Monarchs do not provide significant value in the ecosystem. We have a strange obsession with them because we tend to think they are pretty. They are crappy pollinators, they don't provide decent food for anything, and they aren't needed for milkweed control.
It would be unsurprising to discover that bees too are affected by these pesticides. That would actually matter. Bees have value, unlike butterflies. Predatory insects also have value. Want to show that pesticides cause harm? Pick a valuable insect, not a useless one.
If your definition of value is solely that of immediate economic benefit to humans, then maybe you have an argument. Monarchs are (were?) a highly visible indicator species, their decline is an alarm that something is wrong. Whatever that is, it is highly likely to affect other species throughout the food chain.