杏吧原创

Jeff Ruch was fresh out of law school when he learned what can happen if you cross a powerful politician. After writing a report that angered one of his bosses at the California state legislature, Ruch was sacked. Two decades later he created his own organisation to protect government whistle-blowers, many of them scientists. Ruch told Jim Giles about holding George W. Bush鈥檚 administration to account, and why a new president may not make scientists safer.

What happened in California?

I was writing a report on a proposed prison. It was on a contaminated site and they weren鈥檛 going to do an environmental review. I put this in my report, and the speaker of the Californian assembly changed it. The Los Angeles Times picked up on it and the speaker was embarrassed. I was called into his office and told to vacate the premises by the end of the day. They thought I had called the Times. I hadn鈥檛, but I had told someone who then did.

So you were out of a job?

I was fired and blackballed. The speaker said he鈥檇 look darkly on me being employed by anyone within his realm of influence 鈥� my entire professional world. Luckily the chair of the assembly鈥檚 labour committee rescued me by withholding contributions to the speaker from labour unions. The incident taught me how fragile government careers are. They can be snuffed out if you offend the powerful.

How did you come to set up your own group?

In 1991 I went to work for the Government Accountability Project in Washington DC. We gave help and legal advice to public and private sector employees victimised for whistle-blowing. It was like a legal emergency room. We got calls from all over saying, 鈥淭hey鈥檙e about to fire me.鈥� I realised we needed to take preventive action and help people to disclose problems, perhaps without going public themselves. So I and some others set up Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility [PEER] in 1993.

What is the philosophy at PEER?

Deliver the message without the messenger. We sell [PEER-branded] boxer shorts, but not T-shirts 鈥� you can wear boxers to work and no one knows. The important thing is to ventilate the bureaucracy. If anything that happens can end up on the front page the next day without management knowing how it got there, that changes how government agencies operate.

Who are you most proud to have helped?

One was Don Sweeney, an economist with the Army Corps of Engineers. It was 2000, and there was a multibillion-dollar plan to expand dams on the Mississippi river. Sweeney oversaw the cost-benefit survey for two years, but when it became clear that the project wasn鈥檛 going to be cost-effective, he was told to change the numbers.

And did he?

No. He was told to think about his family 鈥� it was very heavy-handed 鈥� but he wouldn鈥檛 change the figures so he was removed from the assignment. Then he called us. We advised him to go public, since he had already been sidelined. He had explicit emails from top commanders saying they didn鈥檛 want 鈥渓imp-wristed numbers鈥�. We helped him get the story into the media and it hit like an atom bomb. It started an investigation that ultimately vindicated him. Sweeney served out his career as a university professor. His information produced change and he emerged professionally unscarred.

Presumably some whistle-blowers would rather not be identified?

Yes. Early in the first Bush administration there was debate about whether to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The Department of the Interior promised not to alter the science on the potential impacts of the drilling on wildlife. But the Fish and Wildlife Service, part of the DOI, delivered a fairly negative assessment. This went to the secretary鈥檚 office at the DOI and came out with 17 major changes: things like 鈥渋s鈥� changed to 鈥渋s not鈥�, numbers changed. All the changes minimised the effect of the drilling. The people with the paper trail showing these changes were terrified.

How do you reassure people like that?

We always say that they鈥檙e the brain and we鈥檙e the stationery. They have final sign-off on everything we do. In the end, we gave that story to The Washington Post. The drilling has been blocked ever since. I don鈥檛 know if the whistle-blower has retired yet, but there hasn鈥檛 been any reported blowback.

Were you concerned that the DOI could have identified the source?

In our view the employee has to decide. They are the best judge. Plus we provide legal help. If someone gets in trouble because of a communication with us we open our treasury.

Do you ever fear for the people you鈥檙e protecting?

The fear isn鈥檛 for physical harm, it鈥檚 the pressure they鈥檙e under. Marriages are breaking up, they鈥檙e doubting their own sanity. We鈥檝e had someone commit suicide, a woman at the DOI鈥檚 Bureau of Land Management. She had been reprimanded for correcting something her supervisor put out and given a two-week suspension. In the civil service that鈥檚 a death warrant. She鈥檇 had an impeccable career; she was unmarried, her career was her life. She appealed to her superiors but they refused to remove the suspension. She went home, shot her dogs and killed herself.

Has interference in science got worse under the present Bush administration?

The same thing happened before, but not as much or as pervasively. Now it happens all the time. It鈥檚 because of this administration鈥檚 mania with message control. Science doesn鈥檛 always stay on message; it鈥檚 messy. Plus in the past, if there was concern about something a scientist did, the director of the agency would take the heat. Now the political influence is felt right down at the field level.

Congress is considering new legislation to protect whistle-blowers. What do you want included?

杏吧原创s need special protection. The traditional whistle-blower definition is very limited: you have to disclose violation of a law, misuse of funds or mismanagement, or a danger to public health or safety. In most cases it鈥檚 not any of those. So we need something broad saying that federal employees can tell the truth to anyone, barring classified information, without getting in trouble.

Would that be enough to counter government interference in science?

No. There also have to be consequences for people who commit fraud. Even if a whistle-blower wins it is very rare for the perpetrator to suffer any consequence. The flip side would be to promote whistle-blowers. Put them in charge of programmes they were criticising.

Will things change if a Democrat president is elected in 2008?

I鈥檓 not sure, because a lot of whistle-blower cases concern development issues, like whether to build on environmentally sensitive land. When it comes to development, Democrats and Republicans are all members of Mr Green鈥檚 party 鈥� the money party. I can imagine a Democrat president who is as obsessed with information control [as Bush is] doing the same kinds of things. We expect to be in business regardless of who is elected.