A House committee this week will question if the Department of Energy fired a biologist for promoting her program to Congress against agency wishes.
Two House Science, Space and Technology subcommittees will hold a hearing Wednesday titled “Examining Misconduct and Intimidation of Scientists by Senior Department of Energy Officials.”
The hearing will examine claims that a scientist in the department was fired after briefing Congress about the Low Dose Radiation Research Program, which was being discussed as a part of House legislation.
According to a February letter sent to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, a senior radiation biologist briefed the committee on the program in October 2014. Shortly thereafter, she was terminated. Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, wrote in the letter that he believed it was because of the briefing.
Smith and other committee members wrote that the committee was aware that two department officials accused the scientist of backing the program during the briefing, against the agency’s wishes, and providing the committee with “too much information.”
“The actions … create the appearance that the department expected the program manager to misrepresent or withhold information from Congress,” the letter stated.
The letter added that communicating with Congress is a legally protected form of whistleblowing and cannot be punished.
Two witnesses are scheduled to be at the hearing: Sharlene Weatherwax, associate director of biological and environmental research at the Department of Energy, and Noelle Metting, a radiation biologist at the department.
The letters do not name Metting as the former program manager who was fired, but she is listed online as a former program manager for the Low Dose Radiation Research Program. The program is a way for the department to support research that develops future national radiation risk policy, according to the department’s website.
Weatherwax is the top official in the Office of Biological and Environmental Research, which has an annual budget of more than $600 million. The office is in charge of funding “fundamental research and facilities for energy, climate and the environment,” according to the department’s website.
Smith and other members of the committee sent a followup letter to Moniz accusing him and the agency of not complying with the investigation.
“The department’s continued silence regarding the committee’s request raises concerns that the department is not taking allegations of retaliation and intimidation of an agency seriously,” they wrote in a Feb. 23 letter.
It promises to be another heated hearing in a committee that was known more for hum-drum science lessons than political debates before Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, took over as chairman last year.
Smith has made headlines in recent months with his subpoenas of two state attorneys general and eight science groups regarding their investigations into what Exxon Mobil knew about climate change and when.
Smith convened a hearing last week on the refusal of the groups and the attorneys general to comply with subpoenas he sent them in July. The purpose of the hearing was to get testimony from scholars about the legal justifications for the subpoenas.
In the end, Smith was backed by most of the panel of constitutional professors, which was perhaps not surprising since Republicans could call the majority of witnesses. Negotiations continue between the committee and the subpoenaed parties over whether they will turn over their communications and other documents related to their investigation.
Smith also made waves last year for an investigation into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
A scientist at the agency released a study that showed there was no pause in global warming in recent years, contradicting earlier studies that had shown no drastic increase in global temperature since the late 1990s.
Smith, a climate change doubter, believed the report was politically motivated to back Obama’s Clean Power Plan and other regulations in his environmental agenda. He tried to force the agency to turn over documents and communications concerning the study.
NOAA administrators refused to comply with the subpoena and eventually worked out a deal with Smith and the committee to release some documents to lawmakers. The agency said releasing scientists’ communications about the study would have had a chilling effect on research.
