Questions to NOAA and POGO

Aloha,

Following up from the conflict of interest question I raised at the first public meeting and the denial and minimization recorded in response, I am wondering if anyone is considering publicizing this and/or strategy to make an official complaint and request for correction or legal challenge through the mechanism NOAA is supposed to offer, according to OMB federal guidelines?

I called and wrote to POGO today (The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is a nonpartisan independent watchdog that champions good government reforms. POGO’s investigations into corruption, misconduct, and conflicts of interest achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government.  www.pogo.org)  please see below.

Warmly,

Mirabai Galashan

(Letter to POGO)

I am writing to raise concern about Data Quality Act misconduct by the NMFS branch of NOAA in the proposed legislative changes to outlaw human swim activity with the Hawaiian Spinner Dolphin population.    (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/24/2016-20324/protective-regulations-for-hawaiian-spinner-dolphins-under-the-marine-mammal-protection-act)   The guidelines are currently open for public comment until October 23rd.

Specifically, I wish to expose the cover up of a massive conflict of interest in the funding of the SAPPHIRE research project which is the cornerstone of the case NOAA has made for its proposed action and the fact that NOAA has been in breach of federal guidelines under the DQA governing the dissemination of influential information to the public by misrepresenting that this or any other of the research studies referenced in the proposed guideline change document offer any scientific conclusion there is a direct, real or imminent threat to the Hawaiian Spinner Dolphin population from human swim interaction.

I asked questions at a recent public meeting regarding scientific integrity in the dissemination to the public of influential information and two NOAA employees were captured on record contradicting each other, at first outright denying and then minimizing concerns I raised about the non-disclosure of funding received from a private corporation with a massive vested interest in these guidelines being enacted.

Evidence:

During the recorded question and answer portion of the NOAA public meeting at Sept. 4, 2015 at Konawaena High School Hawaii I asked why NOOA has omitted to disclose to the public in both the verbal presentation and the ppt slides offered that evening and throughout any of the press releases and website pages that the SAPPHIRE research project, (which is being used as the basis  of evidence to justify the need for the proposed changes) was jointly funded by NOAA and Dolphin Quest, the operators of the captive dolphin program with an immense vested interest in legislation that prohibits swimming with wild dolphins since it will grant them an effective monopoly as the only legal commercial provider of the experience of swimming with dolphins .

A NOAA official (I believe her name is Jayne Lefor but no written information was provided about the names and titles of the officials present) stated that funding had not been received by Dolphin Quest.   When members of the audience called out in protest, the moderator, NOAA employee Ann Garrett quickly stepped in and took the mike and said “it was only a little bit and right at the end”.

In response, I asked whether that meant that there is stipulation in the regulation that a minimum amount of funding can be accepted without being considered a conflict of interest.  Ms. Garret appearing flustered and retorted abruptly “we are not in the business of regulating scientists.” 

I also asked whether a conflict of interest investigation had been carried out due to the fact that the main researcher, Julian Tyne being quoted in the proposed guidelines was funded by NOAA and if I also asked whether the research has been peer reviewed by certified independent experts.    It was replied that the information had been peer reviewed but no mention of the reviewers or testimony as to their independence was given. However, I am unable to verify this because the link on the NOAA website where details on peer reviews are supposed to be published has been down for a period of weeks.

Additionally I drew attention to misleading wording that has been used by NOAA – i.e. “compelling evidence” that would be likely to wrongly convey that the research came to conclusions that there was any threat from human swim activity.

Additional information:

I believe these actions are a breach of OMB Data Quality and federal Scientific Integrity guidelines:

 

  • The lead researcher received funding from NOAA for this project
  • NOAA has concealed that funding for the research was provided by Dolphin Quest a private corporation with a significant vested interest in the changes
  • NOAA has used misleading and suggestive wording ie “compelling evidence” in communciation to the media and the public to falsely communicate that it has evidence that the Hawaiian spinner dolphin population is threatened by human swim activity.
  • There is no apparent mechanism to lodge a complaint on the NOAA website.
  • The information has not been presented according to federal guidelines requiring rigorous scientific methodology, free from conflict of interest and unbiased reporting of findings which illustrate best and worst case scenarios and explication of calculation of probabilitiesIn addition, I think the proposed changes raise the following questions
  • The Marine Mammal Protection Act was legislated by congress, what is the constitutionality of these changes?
  • On what basis do these proposed actions have a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest, particularly since NOAA has authorized the take of these dolphins by level B harassment enacted the military on the grounds that it will have a negligible effect.
  • First Amendment concern – to many free will encounters with free dolphins is a spiritual practice
  • 8th Amendment concern – the proposed penalties for swimming with dolphins will be between $27,000 and $100,00 and a year in jail
  • Anti-trust laws- see monopoly to Dolphin Quest aboveKey Documents:• For the Proposed Rule for Spinner dolphins, please see here.• For the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Regulatory Impact Review, please see here.• For the Press Release, please see here. (August 23, 2016)
  • Many thanks for you attention to this matter
  • Mirabai Galashan
  •  215-771-6330
  • • For Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ): Spinner dolphins, please see here. (August 2016)
  • • For the Proposed Rule references, please see here