As an exiled whistleblower (who, coincidentally, worked on environmental analyses), I have given this a great deal of thought.

Dishonest people and organizations do not deserve the honesty of other people. They will only use it in a dishonest way.

For example: It might have been "honest" to tell the Nazis that Jews were hiding in the basement, but did the Nazis deserve the truth? No, because of the evil that they would have done with the truth.

It may very well have been "nobler" to come forward in that circumstance, but I have to agree with the sentiment that when an organization is in the midst of rampant dishonesty and unethical behavior, it doesn't profit anyone who is honest to also be "noble" as defined by this example.

Certainly, this is not to suggest that because management is dishonest, that it warrants dishonesty from everyone else -- no, instead I would submit that this situation requires prudence above nobility.

I just had a conversation about this very thing this past weekend.

Whatever happened to the venerable tradition of "civil disobedience" and then TAKING THE CONSEQUENCES? What "Whistleblower" did covered the first part quite nicely, but skipped the second! I saw no mention that "W." also left the agency in disgust at this behavior.

If the ethical breach was serious enough that "W." determined a leak to the press was warranted, then honesty about the source of the leak was also warranted. The only way change happens is if people are courageous enough to take the heat for making a hard choice. The short-term consequences of owning up to the leak would have been unpleasant, but I'll wager the long-term ones would have been much better for "W.'s" mental health.

With the stringent proviso that this isn't meant to be a criticism of the parties involved. Let's approach this as a learning opportunity.

Perhaps the report writing consultant could have handled this in a better way.

My suggestion is that they could refuse to change their analysis or conclusion. Instead, they suggest that if their (unethical) supervisors want a different report, then they write it themselves and put their own name on it. At any rate, the original analyst's name comes off the report, and that's a non-negotiable position.

That would have left the ethical parties in a better position, and the unethical parties in a worse position. Theoretically speaking, of course.

I speak as an observer of an analogous situation. An unethical supervisor wanted factual data to be "different", to cast himself in a better light. The analyst in question flat out refused to lie and insisted that his name be removed from that report.

It's not perfect. It takes backbone and can still fail to have the intended effect. However doing this tends to shine a spotlight on the bad behaviour and the individual (or system) that is at the core of the conflict here.

There are two different standards at work here; what is legal, or required, and what is ethical, or, for lack of a better term, "right". You can easily set your ethical threshold at either standard. As Bob has pointed out, there was no requirement to own up to the leak, but that may not have been the best course.

All of us know of people who have done things that are perfectly legal and yet make one's skin crawl. Ebenezer Scrooge is a good example of someone who abides by the law rather than by what is right.

The "nobler" course here is the ethical one in my view. I'm not saying that I would have the guts to take that road if I had to choose myself, just what I think is right.

Another thought: by remaining in his job, the ethical "junior" employee remained in a position where he could observe and leak other unethical actions by his superiors. Quitting in disgust, unfortunately, would only have left the unethical sorts in power and with one fewer person "checking up" on them.

The employee who changed his report at the direction of his superiors clearly violated the public trust (as did those who ordered him to do it), and therefore I wouldn't feel any guilt at all over what happened.

I appreciate your comments, Bob, and the comments by others. Regarding someone's suggestion that I should have "taken the heat" for leaking the story to the local press, I believe that I would have committed career suicide by doing so. Remember, I was a junior staff member in my first job. Admitting my whistleblower role would likely have resulted in my being "fired for cause" and that label would have haunted me through the years. Every employment application form always asks, "Have you ever been terminated for cause?" Nothing other than a felony conviction waves a bigger red flag than "yes."

I think there are two wrinkles Bob didn't cover in his response.

The first is, it wasn't clear from the account that the original analyst wasn't "encouraged" to leave ... told behind closed doors that he would be assigned worse duties or outright fired if he didn't leave voluntarily. Our Whistleblower is assuming that because the analyst left voluntarily, he wanted to leave. It may be the analyst would have preferred to keep his original government job. (Some people would.) Our Whistleblower will never know.

And, the first time our Whistleblower learned about malfeasance, he reported it to the press. As Bob notes, the subsequent leak-finding witch hunt was a further failure of civic duty -- essentially more malfeasance. Why wasn't his response to notify the press again? "Government Leaker Persecuted" would make a great headline.

Is there a point to casting pearls before swine? Nobility comes in accepting your fate, not from provoking it without cause. In organizations like the one Whistleblower describes, an honest person won't last long anyway.

I agree with a mixture of what's been said. The analyst deserved to be fired. After seeing management's behavior with the investigation, the whistle blower should have resigned as soon as possible (financial inablity to resign might be a temporary overriding factor) citing the company behavior as the reason. Continuing to work with that company, knowing it's practices would be ignoble.

Should the whistle blower own up to the deed? No, I don't think they have any obligation to do so. Especially given the company behavior. Who knows what consequences might become of it?

The whistleblower is treading on thin ground by reporting a possible unethical problem on another project with another person. The whistleblower opens themself to a civil lawsuit if their fact are wrong or if they do not have all of the facts.

It seems to me that the whistleblower should have gone to an in-house company/gov ethics board anonomyously. If setup correctly, the ethics board or arbitrator should maintain the whistleblower's privacy unless forced to reveal it by a judicial court.

Am I the only one here who thinks whistleblowing to the press isn't such a great idea, and should be reserved only for, to paraphrase Jefferson, "a long train of abuses?" Do we really want every junior employee in the company (or the agency) making independent decisions about what should appear in the press?

And by the way, W, I have a word for someone who blows the whistle and lets someone else take it in the neck for his actions, "Coward."

I cannot accept the "nobler" comment. Falling on one's sword is an act of personal committment to a principle or a relationship. In this case I don't see either coming into play. The worker who agreed to falsify a public document under pressure from a dishonest administration has his own conscience to live with.

I can speak from experience as a triple whistle blower during my 30-plus year career in public service. Fortunately for me there were laws that "protected" my job, but nothing can make up for the anquish and eventual emotional and mental scarring and "other" consequences. In all three cases, the higher ups ended up being promoted and "cared for" while I ended up stuck in a dead-end salary position with the complete loss of support and opportunity for advancement. I hung on to the end for a "government guaranteed retirement" but still have the nightmares and high blood pressure to show for it. My experience would reinforce the old saw, "He can steal the company jet and be admired, but I would be drawn and quartered for taking a paper clip home." I kept my ethical honor, but suffered consequences far beyond anything "reasonable."

For anyone considering becoming a whistle blower I would carefully counsel that they fully understand the consequences and are willing to accept them, not only for themselves, but for their family as well. But, conversely, as Mike points out, the only way change can occur is if there ARE courageous whistle blowers out there (not like the slinky cowards behind the rash of DOD and State Department or even HP boardroom leaks) willing to stand up and take a stand.

Remember, non-violent civil dissobedience only works in an environment where the "oppressing power" cares. Mahatma Ghandi's revolution would have had no more chance under the Nazi regime than the Jews did. The European resistance movements only appear noble now because the allies freed them. Many workers today grind through each day under an oppressive, incompetent, and too often, dishonest management that cares as little as any oppressing power in history...

Oh, so many of us in civil service face so many situations like this every day. However, those doing environmental analysis, like me, have an advantage: the plain facts and scientific truth or, at least, scientific probability.

When objective truth is violated, subverted, and twisted to support otherwise-unsupportable policies and positions, there are avenues for redress--professional organizations, open letters to professional publications and even the local popular press, unions (where the employees are represented), community organizations, and Grand Juries. I prefer these to anonymous leaks to the press, because the former accept responsibility and accountability for both adverse and beneficial consequences, and usually don't harm innocent bystanders. Also, leaks to the press can backfire, e.g., if the reporter receiving the leak sympathizes with the bad actors or just wants to blow things up.

Finally, I must argue that ethical scientists and others working for government agencies have an obligation to stay and fight the good fights, rather than bail out when the heat rises. Most of us truly are there for more than a paycheck and pension; we have a personal commitment to serving the public, with all of its diversity and conflicts that must be dealt with and resolved. Unless retribution involves transfer to the Lower Slobovian office, most storms can be weathered; the miscreants will be discovered sooner or later and either will go to jail, be driven to exile, or (shudder) move on to another job before being discovered. Sooner or later, however, justice always prevails.

To those looking for a noble martyr
To Charles who only sees a coward

It is noble to stand up for the truth
It is noble to stand up for the innocent
It is stupid to stand up for the corrupt

Stop watching Star Trek to define nobility or honor!

Presuming the change in analysis was more than a difference in point of view, both the company and the analyst willing to change the report are corrupt. The report writer may or may not have lost his job had he refused to sign to an altered report. Once he signed his name he removed himself from noble obligations. Whistleblower no longer had any obligation to him. Rather, if the report writer had refused then Whistleblower would have been obligated to stand beside him.

Charles did have a particularly valid issue about doing your job through the media though. It is whistleblowing to call a company down for "a long train of abuses" or for "a momentous decision". It is corporate backstabbing otherwise. The line is fine.

The whistle blower remained in the agency perhaps to blow the whistle once again in the public's interest - good.

The analyst who knuckled under and changed the report against the public's interest got fired (for the wrong reason, but that's beside the point) - also good.

What an interesting series of thoughtful comments! I would like to clarify several unstated aspects of the situation. First, the analyst was asked to change a technical environmental analysis. The change was demanded by a political appointee who refused to accept the analyst's conclusions. The analyst's facts and and original analysis were solid. The only way to change the conclusion was to delete facts. Second, the analyst voluntarily left the organization. He was not forced to leave, although I believe he felt he was in an untenable situation with senior management. I, too, voluntarily left the organization as soon as I could. Finally, years later I had to make another ethical decision. I was directed by a senior manager to initiate an illegal personnel action. I asked the senior manager to put his request in writing. He refused. He said that my refusal told him that I wasn't "part of the management team." He subsequently reorganized the department and my unit disappeared in the reorganization. I was relegated to the proverbial broom closet and my career aspirations disappeared. In this latter case, I took the "nobler" course of action and suffered the consequences. At the time I was told by a trusted friend that I had "won the battle, but lost the war." Now, at the twilight of my career in public service, I sleep well, knowing that I did the right thing -- in both cases. There was a financial consequence, however, as my pension is probably a $1,000 lighter each month.

The public interest should come first - that is not 'nobility' but responsibility. Yes, you did exactly as you should ("blow the whistle") on management's actions (and the press did exactly what a free press should do). Anyone with the knowledge that you had at the time had an obligation to report outside the chain -- it was obviously corrupt.
There is no reaon why anyone should leave an organization because of the actions of others - particularly a public agency - it seems to me that leaves the crooks (and those who go along) in the majority. You leave out of personal self interest - not some misguided concept of 'nobility'. (For instance, if it is a criminal enterprise sticking around is not good for your career or your defense at trial.)