'Sharpiegate': Government weather experts violated scientific integrity by backing Trump over false hurricane claims

New report calls for integrity policy training, reforms to prevent future violations

An investigation into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determined that the agency compromised its scientific integrity policy by supporting a false statement by Donald Trump regarding the path of Hurricane Dorian.

The agency courted controversy in September last year when it issued a statement criticising its own meteorologists for contradicting Mr Trump's claim that the hurricane posed a threat to Alabama.

When Mr Trump made the statement, he presented a map depicting a projected course for the hurricane that had been modified with the use of a black marker. As a result, the entire episode was dubbed "Sharpiegate."

Rather than supporting Alabama-based National Weather Service meteorologists — who reported the state would not be impacted by the hurricane — the NOAA leadership backed a claim made by Mr Trump suggesting the hurricane posed a threat.

An investigation was initiated at the request of two NOAA employees, a former NOAA administrator, and Democratic US Rep Paul Tonko. It was carried out by a panel assembled by the National Academy of Public Administration, a nonpartisan organisation that advocates good governance and routinely carries out assessments for government agencies.

The NOAA's acting administrator, Neil Jacobs, and its communications director, Julie Kay Roberts, were cited as having violated the agency's code of scientific integrity policy "intentionally, knowingly, or in reckless disregard."

The agency's scientific integrity policy explicitly prohibits the NOAA from allowing its communications or its conduct to be influenced by politics.

Neither Mr Jacobs nor Ms Roberts will face punishment for their violation of the policy. Instead, the investigators called for the implementation of new guidelines and training to strengthen the integrity policy to prevent future violations.

"It will be clear to anyone reviewing the accounts captured in this highly credible, independent Scientific Integrity report that the political leaders who interfered in our emergency response system need to publicly apologise or resign," Mr Tonko said.

Mr Jacobs issued a four-page response to the report's findings in which he maintains he never violated any aspect of the policy and accuses the investigators of ignoring the substance of the statements the NOAA issued at the time, and of over-applying the scientific integrity policy.

Similarly, Ms Roberts debated the ruling, claiming she raised issues with the wording of the statement and passing on the responsibility for the statement's wording to employees at the Commerce Department.

According to the Washington Post, the NOAA's acting chief scientist, Craig McLean, was one of the first members of the agency to call for an investigation into the statement. While he agreed with the results of the investigation, he was dismayed that none of the NOAA personnel cited would be punished.

"The Panel concludes that Jacobs and Roberts felt that the situation they were in was out of their hands and their actions were driven by the direction of unnamed and uninterviewed Commerce officials who may well have been the subjects of the redactions," Mr McLean wrote in a statement. "While there may be found causes of sympathy for the oppressed and meek subordinates of domineering autocratic ogres, I hardly can find sympathy in this scintilla of an argument for clemency. If not the single highest person in NOAA, who will stand for the Scientific Integrity of the agency and the trust our public needs to invest in our scientific process and products?"

This investigation is the first of three related to 'Sharpiegate,' with reports from the House Science Committee and the Commerce Department's inspector general expected in coming weeks