What happened: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials sidelined scientists and misrepresented a report on the fate of oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Why it matters: NOAA mischaracterized a report as being peer reviewed and verified by independent scientists when that was not the case; NOAA and White House officials then used the preliminary findings to make a politically favorable argument. By failing to provide the best available scientific information to the public after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, NOAA endangered the well-being of the public and the environment.
In 2010, in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) misrepresented a preliminary analysis and sidelined scientists to make claims that were not based on the best available science. Specifically, NOAA officials issued a four-page report that appeared to be based on uncertain and wide-ranging data estimates. According to congressional testimony by one of the lead authors of the report, the findings were put together in a hurry and the purpose of the report was meant to guide the emergency response; its purpose was not to inform the general public.
However, NOAA and White House officials publicly described the report as evidence that less oil was present in the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. NOAA director Jane Lubchenco characterized the report in public statements as having undergone a "peer review of the calculations” and that "the report and the calculations that went into it were reviewed by independent scientists." Lubchenco stated that the report’s key conclusions were that the “vast majority of the oil has either evaporated or been burned, skimmed and recovered from the wellhead, or dispersed.” President Obama and other administration officials stated the NOAA report provided evidence that the “vast majority of the spilled oil has been dispersed or removed from the water.”
The majority of scientists named on the report refuted the notion proposed by Lubchenco and Obama administration officials that the report was either scientifically precise or an authoritative account of where the oil went. Two congressmen publicly questioned the validity of the report.
In another incident, NOAA officials appeared to sideline NOAA scientists who were collecting data on the oil spill in real-time. The NOAA scientists had determined that a large plume of oil was present in deeper water. However, NOAA officials asked the scientists to postpone talking to the press and publicly denounced media reports based on the scientists’ findings as "misleading, premature and, in some cases, inaccurate."
During an emergency situation, it is imperative that federal agencies provide the best available science to the public so that people can make evidence-based decisions that protect their health, safety, and well-being. By mischaracterizing the report as a robust analysis of the fate of the oil in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, NOAA and the White House downplayed the dangers of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico and its effect on the ecosystem.