Vast F.D.A. Effort Tracked E-Mails of Its Scientists

[MachineGhost]

A wide-ranging surveillance operation by the Food and Drug Administration against a group of its own scientists used an enemies list of sorts as it secretly captured thousands of e-mails that the disgruntled scientists sent privately to members of Congress, lawyers, labor officials, journalists and even President Obama, previously undisclosed records show.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/fd ... .html?_r=1

[Pointedstick]

Thanks for that MG; I was sorely in need of a good dose of Hope and Change.

[MediumTex]

My question when I read these stories is why, if these people were so dissatisfied with their employer's (i.e. the FDA's) polices, did they keep working there rather than simply finding another job?

After you have found your new job you can then report all of the things you didn't like to Congress, the media or whoever you want.

[Pointedstick]

MediumTex, I believe that's a very important question, and one I wrestle with myself. My employer has many policies that I disagree with, and over time I have grown dissatisfied with the nature of our products and how they relate to my love of freedom. So why don't I do it? Golden handcuffs, as they say. I'm well-paid, I have a growing family to support, and I have excellent job security and career advancement possibilities.

Cue the sad violin, right? "Boo hoo hoo, here's the well-compensated professional whining that his cushy job isn't even cushier!" But I believe the same thing is probably happening with these folks. Being an FDA scientist is probably a pretty sweet job! I'd imagine the pay is great, and the perks, access, networking opportunities, and job security are top-notch. If these people gave up their jobs, they'd have to start all over again to get these things (so the thinking goes) and they might not get it.

[Tyler]

Where the scientists choose to work to me seems secondary to government intimidation of scientists.  In fact, I'd prefer the honest ones staying in the government jobs rather than all fleeing just for the right to be comfortably truthful. 

[MediumTex]

Where the scientists choose to work to me seems secondary to government intimidation of scientists.  In fact, I'd prefer the honest ones staying in the government jobs rather than all fleeing just for the right to be comfortably truthful. 

The thing is, when the government is the employer there are a whole different set of issues in play.

If a scientist goes to work for the government as his employer, he enters into a contract to perform certain services in return for his salary.  If that contract doesn't include complaining to third parties about the way the organization is being run, then I would think that the best response to dissatisfaction with the way things are going would be to find a new job.

Working for the government will always be frustrating because you are working for an organization that is based upon fraud, theft, and coercion. 

[WiseOne]

Did you all read the same article I did?

There were a number of inconsistencies that may have confused matters, eg the number of scientists is reported as 5 and 6 at different points, but it sounded like the scientists in question were whistleblowing:

A confidential government review in May by the Office of Special Counsel, which deals with the grievances of government workers,found that the scientists' medical claims were valid enough to warrant a full investigation into what it termed "a substantial and specific danger to public safety."

And the FDA was carrying out a heavyhanded and slightly illegal retaliation scheme.  I'd say these employees were following their conscience at great personal cost, in fact 4 of them were fired.    This kind of thing is certainly not unique to government organizations, although the FDA accidental posting of the surveillance data is pretty amusing.

I know a number of people who work in government, specifically at NIH.  They are as hardworking, honest, and effective as anyone else.  Please don't be so quick to judge.

[smurff]

My question when I read these stories is why, if these people were so dissatisfied with their employer's (i.e. the FDA's) polices, did they keep working there rather than simply finding another job?

After you have found your new job you can then report all of the things you didn't like to Congress, the media or whoever you want.

Because the scientists with enough experience to know what constitutes wrongdoing tend to be mid career--around age 40 or so--and that's when costly chronic illnesses strongly assert themselves. Few Americans, including those earning six-figure salaries, can afford private health insurance premiums for their families, especially if there is a pre-existing condition, in the insurance markets distorted as they ae in the USA. So many Americans are trapped in jobs because of insurance issues it's amazing.

Another issue with respect to government whistleblowers:  I believe they can still benefit financially from outing government frauds. Eavesdropping on emails may be a precursor to serious financial revelations at the FDA. It would be to the employee's advantage to remain with the organization during the investigation as they would have access to records, (theoretically) have whistleblower protection, etc.

There have been spectacular financial scandals at the FDA before, but I have no idea what's going on here. Just putting it out for your consideration.

[WiseOne]

I guess I'm just a bit disturbed by the contention that a job precludes the ability to report wrongdoing that has the capacity to harm people, whether it's in government or private industry.

Whistleblower protection laws exist for a reason.  And famously, "just following orders" doesn't protect you if you do something illegal or lawsuit-worthy on the job.  For academics who live in the "publish or perish" world, it's even more extreme: if you knowingly falsify scientific information, you can be banned from publishing in the mainstream journals, which would make it impossible to get or maintain an academic position.

[MediumTex]

I guess I'm just a bit disturbed by the contention that a job precludes the ability to report wrongdoing that has the capacity to harm people, whether it's in government or private industry.

Whistleblower protection laws exist for a reason.  And famously, "just following orders" doesn't protect you if you do something illegal or lawsuit-worthy on the job.  For academics who live in the "publish or perish" world, it's even more extreme: if you knowingly falsify scientific information, you can be banned from publishing in the mainstream journals, which would make it impossible to get or maintain an academic position.

The problem with whistleblowing in a government employment setting is that any employee could potentially do nothing but blow the whistle all day long:

"This office is being paid for with stolen funds!"
"This office is putting private sector business out of business!"
"This office is using the government's coercive power to threaten and intimidate certain private sector entities!"
"Everyone in this office intentionally works slowly and/or works on dumb projects because there is no productive output to measure in the first place!"

If, for example, I worked at the Department of Education I might try to blow the whistle on the whole Department by reporting that it is unconstitutional and a threat to the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.

I guess if someone wants to blow the whistle on what the government is doing, and he/she is ready to deal with the harassment, intimidation and retaliation that goes along with that (the government is NOT an entity that likes to be challenged about anything), then I say go for it, but doing such things involves falling into several "traps" that HB outlined in How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.

I would rather just take as a given that the government is going to always be involved in many layers, levels and degrees of corruption, stupidity, illegality and threats to public safety and just try to work around it all as best I can.    To me, there is a certain Don Quixote quality to many of these whistleblower situations, though if a whistleblower can get paid for the whistle blowing, I say good for them, though it seems like way more trouble than it's worth to me.

If I was interested in changing the system and had the energy to try, I would probably do it as a private sector lawyer strategically suing the government for selected legal violations, sort of like a pirate ship harasses commercial shipping.

[WiseOne]

If you wanted to change the system at the FDA, you might start by going after pharmaceutical companies.  The "revolving door" between the two is quite notorious.  I find it amusing that the less power you have, the more often you are asked to sign conflict of interest statements.

The NY Times article was short on real information, so it's hard to know what alternatives the whistleblowers had, or if the issues they went after were truly significant.  Granted you have to pick your battles, but sometimes working from the inside is the best way to go.  Also, I highly doubt that government has a monopoly on "corruption, stupidity, illegality and threats to public safety".  There are plenty of examples of that in private industry.  Perhaps it's safest to assume that any large organization has the equivalent of antisocial personality disorder.

[smurff]

To me, there is a certain Don Quixote quality to many of these whistleblower situations, though if a whistleblower can get paid for the whistle blowing, I say good for them, though it seems like way more trouble than it's worth to me.

If you're in the right department (or wrong department, depending on how you look at these things) whistleblowing can be quite remunerative at around 10% of the proceeds.  Defrauding the government tend to be big-time fraud, so 5% to 15% (there's a range, I think) of a $100 million fraud can pay big--even if the whistleblower is criminally complicit.  They earned a half billion dollars in 2011: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... 90755.html

And if complicit, they might still get paid:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/busin ... .html?_r=1

Unfortunately, whistleblowers tend to be unemployable after the fact.

[MediumTex]

Unfortunately, whistleblowers tend to be unemployable after the fact.

Perhaps there should be a witness protection program-type arrangement for whistleblowers.