Studeo
13th August 2010, 13:06
In an explosive first-hand account, ecosystem biologist Linda
Hooper-Bui describes how Obama administration and BP lawyers are
making independent scientific analysis of the Gulf region an
impossibility. Hooper-Bui has found that only scientists who are part
of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process to determine
BP’s civil liability get full access to contaminated sites and
research data. Pete Tuttle, USFWS environmental contaminant specialist
and Department of Interior NRDA coordinator, admitted to The Scientist
that “researchers wishing to formally participate in NRDA must sign a
contract that includes a confidentiality agreement” that “prevents
signees from releasing information from studies and findings until
authorized by the Department of Justice at some later and unspecified
date.” Hooper-Bui writes:
It’s not hazardous conditions associated with oil and dispersants
that are hampering our scientific efforts. Rather, it’s the
confidentiality agreements that come with signing up to work on large
research projects shepherded by government entities and BP and the
limited access to coastal areas if you’re not part of those projects
that are stifling the public dissemination of data detailing the
environmental impact of the catastrophe.
Hooper-Bui’s depictions of samples confiscated by US Fish and Wildlife
officials and expeditions blocked by local law enforcement is
consistent with the steady stream of reports about obstruction,
censorship, and confusion under BP’s private army of contractors. A
full and open scientific assessment of the effects of the BP disaster
is crucial for the health of the ecosystem and the residents of this
American jewel.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/10/scientists-bp-gag
Hooper-Bui describes how Obama administration and BP lawyers are
making independent scientific analysis of the Gulf region an
impossibility. Hooper-Bui has found that only scientists who are part
of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process to determine
BP’s civil liability get full access to contaminated sites and
research data. Pete Tuttle, USFWS environmental contaminant specialist
and Department of Interior NRDA coordinator, admitted to The Scientist
that “researchers wishing to formally participate in NRDA must sign a
contract that includes a confidentiality agreement” that “prevents
signees from releasing information from studies and findings until
authorized by the Department of Justice at some later and unspecified
date.” Hooper-Bui writes:
It’s not hazardous conditions associated with oil and dispersants
that are hampering our scientific efforts. Rather, it’s the
confidentiality agreements that come with signing up to work on large
research projects shepherded by government entities and BP and the
limited access to coastal areas if you’re not part of those projects
that are stifling the public dissemination of data detailing the
environmental impact of the catastrophe.
Hooper-Bui’s depictions of samples confiscated by US Fish and Wildlife
officials and expeditions blocked by local law enforcement is
consistent with the steady stream of reports about obstruction,
censorship, and confusion under BP’s private army of contractors. A
full and open scientific assessment of the effects of the BP disaster
is crucial for the health of the ecosystem and the residents of this
American jewel.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/10/scientists-bp-gag