NOAA administrators temporarily step down, having overseen the investigation into 'Sharpiegate' incident
Two high-ranking officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Steve Volz and Jeff Dillen, have been placed on administrative leave, just days before a Senate committee was scheduled to vote on related matters. This action comes amidst ongoing tensions and delays in resolving an investigation into scientific integrity violations during the Sharpiegate scandal.
The Sharpiegate scandal erupted in 2019 when then-acting NOAA administrator Neil Jacobs and another NOAA official violated the agency's scientific integrity policy by backing President Donald Trump's hand-drawn version of the forecast for Hurricane Dorian. The storm, which did not strike Alabama as Trump's modification suggested, instead made landfall in Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.
Volz, the second-highest ranking civilian at NOAA, has been involved in responding to Trump's "Gold Standard Science" executive order and steering the development of a multibillion-dollar next-generation series of NOAA weather satellites. He has been a major proponent of continuing to rely mainly on NOAA owned and operated satellites, while entering into data purchase agreements with private companies as well.
Dillen, along with Volz, led an investigation into whether NOAA's scientific integrity policies were violated during the Sharpiegate scandal. A letter informing Volz he was being placed on leave references an "investigation" into his "recent conduct." It is not clear if Dillen's letter also references an investigation.
The work on NOAA's satellites will now fall to Volz's replacement. The Sharpiegate scandal appears to be the only significant event that links the two men, though the personnel moves could be coincidental.
The ongoing investigation and the placement of these officials on leave come at a time when NOAA is facing staff cuts and proposed budget reductions. These measures have lowered morale and led to questions about the agency's readiness for predicting and responding to extreme weather events, as seen recently during the Texas flooding disaster.
Meanwhile, Jacobs, who was involved in the Sharpiegate scandal, has been nominated to become NOAA administrator in Trump's current term. A Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee vote on Jacobs' nomination is scheduled for July 30.
The NOAA's satellites division is at the center of debates over relying on the private sector for space-based weather observations versus building public satellite constellations. The future of these debates and the ongoing investigation into scientific integrity violations at NOAA remain uncertain.
[1] Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/climate/noaa-officials-leave-sharpiegate.html
- The general news about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is filled with the ongoing investigation into scientific integrity violations during the Sharpiegate scandal, which has led to the administrative leave of two high-ranking officials, Steve Volz and Jeff Dillen.
- The medical-conditions and health-and-wellness sector, along with the finance and business industry, are closely watching the developments at NOAA due to the importance of accurate weather forecasts for emergency preparedness and economic decision-making.
- In the realm of politics, the Sharpiegate scandal has resurfaced as President Donald Trump's nominee for NOAA administrator, Neil Jacobs, faces a Senate vote for his appointment, despite his involvement in the controversial incident during Hurricane Dorian in 2019.
- Aside from the Sharpiegate scandal, the ongoing debates in the science and industry sectors revolve around the role of the private sector in space-based weather observations versus building public satellite constellations, particularly for NOAA's satellites division.
- The crime-and-justice sphere is potentially connected to this saga as questions arise about the potential violations of NOAA's scientific integrity policies by its officials, posing a challenge to maintaining public trust and ensuring the accuracy of weather forecasts.
