University Environmental-Justice Whistleblowers Versus Industry Retaliators
Dow Chemical, Union Carbide, and Edward Calabrese
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15684262 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kristin Shrader‐frechette (0000-0002-1063-7684, University of Notre Dame, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 214-218 |
| Publication date | 2012-08-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Environmental Justice (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1937-5174 • E-ISSN: 1939-4071 |
| Publisher | Mary Ann Liebert, Inc (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1089/env.2012.0002 |
| OpenAlex | W2003167185 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 6 |
Although US law protects environmental-justice (EJ) whistleblowers from retaliation when they are federal-government, private-financial-sector, or private-environment-related-sector employees, university EJ scientists who blow the whistle on polluters have little federal protection if these polluters retaliate by charging them with research misconduct (RM). For instance, the lead industry retaliated against University of Pittsburgh physician Herb Needleman, charging him with RM after his research showed harmful effects of lead on inner-city children. Chemical-industry-funded Ed Calabrese retaliated against University of Notre Dame biologist/philosopher Kristin Shrader-Frechette, after her research showed harms from low-dose-chemical exposures, particularly on people of color. Why does massive polluter retaliation against university EJ researchers continue? This article suggests that one reason is lack of public awareness of the problem. Because few university EJ researchers publicize their accounts of industry-funded RM retaliation against them—as this article does—offending industry officials/scientists therefore suffer no PR or reputational damage for their harassment of innocent researchers. Consequently, special interests have little incentive to stop their misbehavior. Another reason for continuing RM retaliation against university whistleblowers is that current federal policies inadequately protect university EJ researchers from special-interest RM retaliation. The article argues for at least two remedies. These are (1) publicizing retaliatory, industry-funded RM harassment of university EJ researchers, in order to deter future retaliation against other researchers, and (2) amending the 2005 federal and university RM policies so they include retaliation protection for “respondents” (those accused of RM), not merely “complainants” (RM accusers), as they do now
Economic Justice · Economics · Government (linguistics · Harassment · Incentive · Misconduct · Political science · Private sector · Environmental Justice and Health Disparities · Law · Philosophy
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,09 |
| Citation span | 2015 - 2015 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |