I'm Shocked!

Shocked! To discover misfeasance in our government!

So now, it turns out, the government is going through a bunch of contortions (read: distortions) to make scientific studies/reports/opinions read the "right" way. I'm shocked! Shocked! To find out that such a thing would go on in this country!
We all like to think, I believe, that scientists and suchlike are selfless seekers after the truth. This definitely falls under the heading of "Good Idea; Too Bad It's Wrong"
Much as I'd like to attribute this to the current administration as yet-another-example of the perfidy of the president and his neo-con-neo-religio-cabinet-without-portfolio; this is not a new story.
Example: In or about 1994 (pretty sure it was '94, but I'm too lazy to look it up). National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) biologists were about to release a "Biological Opinion" regarding the impact of the Columbia River dams (18, count 'em 18!) on the river's salmon populations.




Long in the works, and containing the results of years of investigation and observation, the summary of the report concluded that yes, the dams did in fact have an impact on the salmon fisheries. Hardly a surprising result.

{A quote from a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory report:
"This is a fishery biologist's opportunity to provide specifications for use in turbine design," said Duane Neitzel, Pacific Northwest project manager. "Turbines are integral to the operation of hydroelectric dams, but they also can injure fish." Turbine passage can be considered one of the more fatal routes that fish take through hydroelectric dams. Mortality rates range from 4 to 20 percent, depending on factors such as type of turbine and type of fish.}

Also, not the result desired by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), or a number of other Columbia River Basin industries who faced some impacts of their own as a potential fallout from this report. Well. If you look at the report today, you will find the conclusion reads that the dams do not have an impact on the salmon fisheries; a conclusion so at odds with common sense, to say nothing of being in utter contradiction to the body of the report - some fifty years of observation and study that it beggars the imagination to understand how such a statement could be inserted.
Here's what happened.
The team of biologists studied the years of census data (salmon census, not people census), analyzed the data, built a model based on the data. Wrote the report, including the data and the analysis. Added a conclusion that said the dams did have an impact.
Sorry, not acceptable. Enter the political appointee. In this case, Western States Director of NMFS

Rollie Schmitten (The Honorable, as he liked to have himself referred to in many many many press releases). He returned the Opinion to the team of biologists. It ended up being a very simple fix, due to the wonders of modern word processing. No need to retype the document. Simply insert "not" between "do" and "have".
Now, this Rollie Schmitten (The Honorable) had previously been a lobbyist for Washington and Oregon lumber companies. He showed such promise in that job that he was hired by the government to represent the interest of the citizens, presumably all the citizens, not just the citizens who happened to own logging rights. The appointing authority?

Then-President Bill Clinton.
With the conclusion that the dams (18 dams!) had no impact on the salmon, the BPA was relieved of any need to further mitigate the effect of dam operations beyond the current operations. It also means that the area industries are, to a degree, inocculated from having to change the way they operate. The cities can continue to light their signs, the farmers can continue to take subsidized water, the aluminum refiners can continue to get cheap electricity. The salmon can continue to be ground into burger by the turbines.
Later that year, President Clinton promoted The Honorable Rollie Schmitten to National Director, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Well done, Rollie!
Oh: About the bioligists who wrote, and then changed the report. Why did they allow this to happen? Simple. They, like most of us, have a degree of economic self-interest. They like to eat pretty much on a regular basis. They have mortgages. They have children to school. They are subject to pressure applied by their employer (read blackmail).



Galileo caved; can you expect greater fortitude from a government employee, be he scientist or accountant or army general?