The problem with data is that it has to be shared and disseminated through human channels, often being shifted toward a bias that may or may not be apparent. The problem with the Environmental Protection Agency’s data is that the bias is leaning heavily towards the U.S. government’s agendas and farther and farther away from the objective eye of science.

A recent survey of EPA scientists by the Union of Concerned Scientists reveals some concerning results. Of the 1,589 scientists polled, 60 percent said they experienced at least one instance of political interference in their work over the last five years.

Thirty-one percent of those polled personally experienced frequent or occasional “statements by EPA officials that misrepresent scientists’ findings,” and 22 percent said they experienced “selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome.”

Political interference might not be a huge surprise in the EPA, considering it is a government agency. However, there seems to be a general consensus among the scientists polled that the government needs to take a step back and let the data speak for itself.

One interesting section of the report includes written responses from scientists. One scientist from the EPA regional offices sums everything up nicely: “There are still good scientists producing good science at EPA. The main problem I see is an administration that considers science only if it supports its agenda. As in other areas, science is used only if it furthers preexisting policy; otherwise it is ignored, marginalized or suppressed (e.g. climate change).”

Data from the EPA is often researched and used in the formation of legislation, or, even more problematically, to rebut proposed legislation focused on global warming, emissions caps and other touchy subjects. The results of this poll shed doubt on the legitimacy of many of the scientific claims made by the EPA. If you can’t trust a government agency made up of scientists to provide accurate scientific data, who can you trust? All I know is that if its own scientists don’t trust the EPA, I probably won’t either.