The instances detailed in the reports from the EPA’s inspector general pertain to situations where the employees who were victims of alleged retaliation thought chemicals should be considered more toxic while top officials sought to consider them safer.
In one such case, EPA scientist Sarah Gallagher says she thought the agency should consider the chemical as toxic to fetal development while another official wanted to classify it as a lower-priority body weight issue.
In another case documented in a report finding retaliation against scientist Martin Phillips, a senior science advisor allegedly changed an assessment in a way that removed “reproductive toxicity” as a concern from safety information that goes to people who work with the chemical.
In a third report finding retaliation against scientist William Irwin, a manager also allegedly tried to remove evidence of reproductive toxicity.
As a result of these incidents, Gallagher, Phillips and Irwin suffered lower marks on their performance reviews, while Gallagher lost out on a bonus and Irwin was even reassigned to a different division, according to the office of the EPA’s inspector general.
Gallagher told The Hill she felt like she couldn’t do her job without facing retaliation.
“I was definitely scared,” she said. “I felt that nothing I could do would allow me to both protect human health and my career.”
In addition to implications on their own careers, the watchdog reports pointed out a chilling effect that could impact other agency scientists’ willingness to stand up to management.
“Other assessors noticed how those who disagreed with management were perceived,” the reports said.
Read the full story at TheHill.com.
