At Mother Jones, Adam Federman gives us the skinny on Murray Hitzman, the guy who resigned from his job as head of the energy and minerals program at the U.S. Geological Survey in December because he felt the Trump regime was trying to circumvent the agency’s longstanding Fundamental Science Practices. Among other things, these bar the release of sensitive oil and gas data to government officials before such information is released to the public.
The rationale behind this isn’t the slightest bit arcane. Unscrupulous officials could use advance knowledge of what’s in the data to enrich themselves and their pals:
In his resignation letter, obtained by Mother Jones, Hitzman said he was leaving the USGS because the agency had agreed to provide Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke with data from the Alaska energy assessment “several days in advance of the information’s public release, in contradiction of my interpretation of USGS fundamental science policy.”
It’s unclear why officials at the Interior Department, which houses the USGS, wanted to see the study in advance or if they ever actually viewed it before it was published. There’s no evidence that Zinke or anyone else sought to alter the findings or use the information for improper purposes. But critics say the administration’s actions fly in the face of decades of established practice and contradict written ethical guidelines—guidelines that are designed to ensure the integrity of the agency’s scientific research and prevent it from being exploited by anyone seeking an unfair economic advantage. [...]
Another USGS scientist, Larry Meinert, Hitzman’s deputy, said he also quit the agency in part because of pressure to violate the guidelines.
Asked about the request for data, an Interior official said the department’s political leadership has the “legal authority to see any scientific data produced by the department.” A number of Interior officials, present and past, see things differently. An advance look at the data in question, they told Mother Jones, provides the opportunity for an ethical breach. This is especially the case with energy and mineral assessments, which, Federman notes, “contain valuable economic data that have the potential to move markets.”
So much the Trump regime is doing these days flies in the face of established practice that a high level of ethical numbness must be a plus if not an outright requirement on the résumé of anyone seeking a top federal appointment.
It’s sickening that Hitzman and Meinart are doing the resigning instead of the people responsible for reinterpreting the guidelines in such a twisted and potentially lucrative manner.