SIGN UP NOW
Follow the NWC on Twitter!Follow the NWC on Facebook!

This Week on Honesty Without Fear

Tune in Tuesday at 1:00pm EDT to Honesty Without Fear on Progressive Radio Network.

Guest Host Dr. David Lewis interviews fellow EPA whistleblower William Sanjour about his recent article "Designed to Fail: Why Regulatory Agencies Don't Work" in Independent Science News. Mr. Sanjour uses his 30 years of experience at the EPA to not only explain the problem, but also to offer some solutions. One of those solutions is to better protect the whistleblowers who raise concerns. Listen to Lewis and Sanjour discuss why administrative regulations are broken and why they failed to prevent events like the BP Oil Disaster.

You can take action to protect whistleblowers by signing the petition.
 
Submit Your Question to be asked on air during the show or call in to 1-888-874-4888.

 

Missed last week's episode?? You can listen to the podcast.

This Week on Honesty Without Fear

Tune in tomorrow at 1:00pm EDT to Honesty Without Fear on Progressive Radio Network.

In the first half hour, Steve Kohn and Lindsey Williams discuss the status of environmental whistleblower protections and how listeners can help by taking action.

In the second half hour, Richard Renner interviews Dr. David Lewis, a highly respected research microbiologist, about scientific integrity and his experience blowing the whistle on the EPA’s policy of promoting the land application of sewage sludge on farmland.

Submit Your Question to be asked on air during the show.

Missed last week's episode?? You can listen to the podcast.

Newsweek Reports on Whistleblower Handbook Library Donations

Today, Newsweek’s The Daily Beast announced that whistleblowers from across the country are donating a new how-to guide to local public libraries. So far, the whistleblowers have donated a thousand copies, which is only the beginning if their idea takes off. 

Written by the NWC’s very own Stephen M. Kohn, The Whistleblower Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide to Doing What’s Right and Protecting Yourself has received staunch praise from whistleblowers who have already fought through their cases. John Solomon of The Daily Best describes Mr. Kohn as, “a feared litigator in government and corporate circles, who wins three quarters of the cases he brings on behalf of aggrieved whistleblowers.”

Frederic Whitehurst, who blew the whistle on the FBI crime lab in the 1990s, came up with the library project and was interviewed for the Newsweek article. “With whistleblowers, if they lose their case, they lose their credibility, and that means they can’t fix the wrong they want to right. So this really is about citizen empowerment,” he explained. “Where do people go and what can they do to make change and have a major impact when they know of something wrong.” 

Dr. Whitehurst, Solomon reports, “would do it all again, [but] doesn’t want future whistleblowers to make the same mistakes he did.” This sentiment is shared among the 20 whistleblowers who are sending the Handbooks to libraries. They have all used their own money for the donations, hoping to “inspire Americans to blow the whistle on the next Enron-sized corporate fraud, a potentially devastating nuclear- or drug-safety issue, or the ethical transgressions of a government leader–but to do it in a way that saves them some of the heartache [they] endured.”

You can find the full list of 20 whistleblowers who have joined the cause, including Bunny Greenhouse, Sibel Edmonds, Robert Smith, Dr. David Lewis, and Linda Tripp, in the National Whistleblowers Center press release.

If you would like to join the whistleblowers’ initiative by donating a Handbook to a public library, click here.

*Owen Dunn (NWC Fellow) drafted this posting

Dr. David Lewis says "Fix S. 372"

Dr. David L. Lewis

My client, Dr. David L. Lewis, is issuing an open letter today urging the House of Representatives to correct the "the grievous and manifold shortcomings in S. 372 before voting on it." He also urges his fellow citizens to join him in taking action to share his concerns with their representatives.

Dr. Lewis was a top microbiologist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He raised the standards for dental hygiene worldwide when he showed how previous practices were inadequate to protect dental patients from the transmission of HIV.  He showed how EPA's rules for land application of sewage sludge did not have the scientific support needed to protect us from airborne diseases. That is when "industry representatives and EPA managers went ballistic." His retaliation case is still pending.

He is today concerned that:

  • S. 372 ― for the first time ever ― would deny protection to federal employees if a judge finds that violations of law exposed by whistleblowers were “minor,” “inadvertent,” or committed when the violator was engaged in a “conscientious carrying out of official duties.” Every federal manager faced with a whistleblower retaliation claim will be hiding under this gaping loophole.
  • S. 372 would deny protection for whistleblowers who challenge an act of discretionary authority, or any retaliation against other whistleblowers. These exclusions would render whistleblowers even more powerless to prevent waste, fraud, abuse and violations of law within the federal government.
  • S. 372 would allow judges on the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) to dismiss whistleblower cases without any hearing. Due to all of the loopholes already at the disposal of employers who retaliate, federal employees prevail in less than 2% of the cases that proceed to a hearing. The current system needs to provide more fairness to whistleblowers ─ not to make it even more burdensome to prevail.

He urges everyone to Take Action by contacting their representatives. The full text of his letter follows in the continuation of this entry.

 

David L, Lewis, Ph.D.

December 16, 2010

 

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (S. 372)

For 32 years, I worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research & Development (“EPA-ORD”) in Athens, Georgia. During that time, I received EPA’s top awards for peer-reviewed research articles, including the Science Achievement Award for Biology & Ecology in 2000 and the Science & Technology Achievement Award in 2002. I also received four Sigma Xi Active Faculty Research Awards, and published more than fifty peer-reviewed research articles. This included first-authored papers in Nature, Nature Medicine and Lancet. The CDC and other public health organizations worldwide adopted the current heat-sterilization standard for dentistry as a result of my research on dental devices. My coworkers and I found that HIV and other viruses could thwart government-recommended disinfection methods by hiding in lubricants expelled by dental drills and other common devices used to clean and repair teeth.

When I applied these same findings to EPA's methods recommended for killing pathogens in sewage sludge ("biosolids") used in agriculture, industry representatives and EPA managers went ballistic. Managers in charge of EPA's biosolids program met with industry executives; and, together, they ended my research career at EPA and the University of Georgia. Seven years after EPA terminated me for publishing this research in Nature, my whistleblower retaliation case is still pending on appeal. Like many whistleblowers, I was fired for simply doing my job. So, I know how important it is for public health and scientific integrity that we have meaningful whistleblower protections.

Having read the Senate's latest version of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA), S. 372, I am profoundly concerned that it will roll back existing whistleblower protections for federal employees. What I read clearly confirmed the findings of attorneys at the National Whistleblowers Center (NWC) as reported in their public statement "S. 372: A Bad Deal for Whistleblowers."1 For example:

  • S. 372 ― for the first time ever ― would deny protection to federal employees if a judge finds that violations of law exposed by whistleblowers were “minor,” “inadvertent,” or committed when the violator was engaged in a “conscientious carrying out of official duties.” Every federal manager faced with a whistleblower retaliation claim will be hiding under this gaping loophole.

  • S. 372 would deny protection for whistleblowers who challenge an act of discretionary authority, or any retaliation against other whistleblowers. These exclusions would render whistleblowers even more powerless to prevent waste, fraud, abuse and violations of law within the federal government.

  • S. 372 would allow judges on the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) to dismiss whistleblower cases without any hearing. Due to all of the loopholes already at the disposal of employers who retaliate, federal employees prevail in less than 2% of the cases that proceed to a hearing. The current system needs to provide more fairness to whistleblowers ─ not to make it even more burdensome to prevail.

Even the potential benefits of S. 372 would provide little encouragement to whistleblowers given the legal obstacles they already face. Their best ─ and often only ─ hope is to possess the right to a trial by jury. Yet S. 372 will give the MSPB the power to completely remove this hope by simply issuing a summary judgment followed by a final dismissal within 270 days. S. 372 would also open the door for the Office of Personnel Management to circumvent the provision that could break the Federal Circuit's monopoly on whistleblower claims.

Moreover, S. 372 will even further discourage private attorneys from taking whistleblower contingency cases. Most whistleblowers would exhaust their savings long before they could ever find justice under the law, and few will have access to experienced attorneys.

Taxpayers and public servants want and deserve better that what the Senate is offering; and whistleblowers should not be pushed backwards in their struggle for meaningful protections. I pray that the House of Representatives will correct the grievous and manifold shortcomings in S. 372 before voting on it. And I urge my fellow citizens to take immediate action through the NWC's Alert2 and help encourage our Representatives to take these important steps for the sake of our Nation’s future.

 

Respectfully,

 

David L. Lewis, Ph.D.

Former EPA Research Microbiologist

 

Dr. David Lewis' story of the Iron Horse of Science

David Lewis' Iron Horse of ScienceMy client Dr. David Lewis has written a story about his experience blowing the whistle at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is called, "EPA Fired Oil-Degradation Expert Concerned about Deepwater Oil Rigs: The Iron Horse of Science." It appears in the current issue of the monthly Pennsylvania publication The Order of the Earth. Click on September issue, and then go to page 7.

In 1998, the EPA transferred David to the University of Georgia in part to research how we might better respond to oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. The politics that ensued show why we need leadership from the top to remove politics from science.

David's story will have particular appeal to alumni of the University of Georgia.

Photo by Walter Montgomery.

EPA nixed study of treating oil spilled in Gulf of Mexico

My client, Dr. David L. LewisDr. David L. Lewis, was a top microbiologist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He raised the standards for dental hygiene worldwide when he showed how previous practices were inadequate to protect dental patients from the transmission of HIV.  He showed how EPA's rules for land application of sewage sludge did not have the scientific support needed to protect us from airborne diseases. Now the Environmental News Network (ENN) is reporting that in 1998, the EPA assigned Dr. Lewis to the University of Georgia in part to research the risks of crude oil spills from drilling rigs.  Dr. Lewis was concerned that oil from a blowout could travel in deep sea currents to environmentally sensitive areas on all sides of the Atlantic.  Anyone ever hear of the "Gulf Stream"? ENN is reporting that the Clinton Administration's EPA nixed the project. The EPA's Office of Water (OW), headed by Robert Perciasepe, coordinated with leaders of the biosolids industry (who were sore about Dr. Lewis' research on the dangers posed by their industry) to damage his reputation and get him fired in 2003.  ENN says that EPA Administrator Carol Browner was sympathetic but was "overruled at the highest level."  President Barack Obama appointed Browner to oversee energy and environmental issues, and appointed Perciasepe as EPA Deputy Administrator. It is too bad that we lost the opportunity to apply our top scientific talent to the problem of biological degradation of crude oil, and that those who sided with industry over our interests are again setting government policy. You can read Dr. Lewis' paper on his proposal to study oil spills, how EPA squashed it, and then squashed his career at EPA, by following this link.

Judge compels deposition of EPA official

Bookmark and Share

Dr. David L. LewisU.S. District Judge Clay Land, of Athens, Georgia, issued an order yesterday compelling the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide their employee Madolyn Dominy for deposition in a whistleblower's scientific fraud case.   Madolyn Dominy was the EPA's Regional Biosolids Coordinator from 1998 to 2004.  In his whistleblower lawsuit, Dr. David L. Lewis (pictured) and dairy farmers Andy McElmurray and William Boyce claim that researchers at the University of Georgia (UGA) conspired with EPA employees to make false statements as part of a grant application to justify land application of sewage sludge. The law firm of Hallman & Wingate of Marietta, Georgia, represents Dr. Lewis, McElmurray and Boyce in this case. The EPA tried to use is "Touhy" regulation to prevent Hallman & Wingate from deposing Dominy.  Yesterday, Judge Land rejected this attempt, and ordered that EPA make Dominy available for deposition by September 11, 2009. A copy of the order is available at this link.

 

Dr. Lewis and the dairy farmers filed their lawsuit under the federal False Claims Act.  They initially asked the government to intervene to recover money the researchers obtained under false pretenses.  The government declined, so they are pursuing discovery to prove that the researchers' "Gaskin Study" containing false, unreliable and fabricated scientific data regarding the effects of sewage sludge on animal health and land. Dr. Lewis and the farmers also claim that the researchers cited the Gaskin Study in additional grant applications, thus violating the False Claims Act again. The lawsuit arises from the EPA's efforts to justify its "Sludge Rule" that allows sewage sludge to be spread on certain open lands. The Sludge Rule is at 40 C.F.R. Part 503. Dr. Lewis has determined that the EPA's rule lacks the scientific basis needed to assure its safety.

The Gaskin Study related to sewage sludge that was processed by an Augusta, Georgia wastewater treatment plant and applied as fertilizer to various parcels of land, including the farms of Boyce and McElmurray. During the late 1990s, Boyce and McElmurray claim that the sewage sludge contained hazardous wastes which ultimately poisoned and killed their dairy cows. Together with Dr. Lewis, they claim that the UGA researchers and EPA employees worked together on studies of the Augusta sewage sludge land application project with an agenda of promoting land application of sewage sludge as safe and beneficial and discrediting any allegations to the contrary. As the EPA’s Region 4 Biosolids Coordinator from 1998 to 2004, Dominy participated in the project from its initial stages on. Her deposition would be a meeting of Dominy and all the lawyers in the case in which the lawyers could ask her questions and record her answers for use as evidence.

The EPA had cited its Touhy regulation in its effort to block this deposition. In a case called United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462, 469-70 (1951), the Supreme Court held that federal agency could establish conditions for their employees in responding to subpoenas.  In this case, EPA has a Touhy regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 2.402(b). It says that its employees can respond only if EPA management gives permission.  In this case, EPA denied permission.  The Court found that the EPA’s refusal to allow her to be deposed based solely on an unsubstantiated and subjective belief that she possesses no relevant information was "arbitrary and capricious."