WASHINGTON, D.C. — "There’s a message: If you want to prosper at USDA, don’t make waves." That’s the warning delivered by the executive director of a watchdog group that has filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the USDA.

The lawsuit is fighting to restore the reputation of a prominent and an award-winning entomologist who was briefly suspended after being accused of violating the agency’s policies. Dr. Jonathan Lundgren, an 11-year veteran of the USDA who won national attention for his findings that certain pesticides harm bees and butterflies, filed his complaint with the federal Merit Systems Protection Board on Oct. 28, in Washington, D.C.

Lundgren, who was the lead scientist and senior lab supervisor at the agency’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) center in Brookings, S.D., claimed he stepped down recently because of the emotional strain of defending his scientific studies and the USDA blocking his research into the widely-used neonicotinoid insecticides.

His complaint stated his bosses began to "impede or deter his research and resultant publications" for more than a year and when he complained, his local supervisor suspended him for 30 days, last August. A senior ARS associate director overruled the length of suspension, changing it to 14 days.

Lundgren further claimed the USDA retaliated and harassed him beginning in April of last year following media interviews he gave a month earlier regarding some his research findings.

ARS spokesman Christopher Bentley said in a written statement: "We take the integrity of our scientists seriously, and we recognize how critical that is to maintaining widespread confidence in our research among the scientific community, policy makers and the general public. As one of the world’s leading promoters of agriculture and natural resources science and research, USDA has implemented a strong scientific integrity policy to promote a culture of excellence and transparency. That includes procedures for staff to report any perceived interference with their work, seek resolution and receive protection from recourse for doing so."

Bentley declined to discuss further the aspects of Lundgren’s claims.

Lundgren’s research included exam-ining a popular class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids, or neonic, used by U.S. farmers fighting pest damage to corn and other crops. The insecticides are sold in dispensing forms that include both spraying plants and/or coating seeds. The insecticides are also used on plants sold by garden and lawn shops.

In his complaint, filed by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) group, based in Washington, D.C., Lundgren said his troubles began after he published his research and gave interviews to journalists about the risks of a new genetic-engineering technique developed by seed and chemical company Monsanto.

In a five-page narrative accompanying his complaint, he cited two events that led to his suspension, including submission of a report he wrote for the scientific journal The Science of Nature on the "non-target effects of clothianidin, a widely used nicotine-based pesticide, on monarch butterflies," which Lundgren said was not appropriate.

He was also accused of a paperwork error in his "travel authorization for his invited presentation before a peer panel at the National Academy of Science, as well as to a USDA group, the Pennsylvania No-Till Alliance." The USDA said Lundgren failed to seek approval to attend the events, and the complaint said the USDA didn’t say why his travel was denied.

When the USDA learned he submitted a report to a science journal, the PEER complaint claimed Lundgren faced "improper reprisals, interference, and hindrance of my career began in earnest." He was ordered not to speak again to media. The ARS human resources department launched a six-month investigation of Lundgren’s lab, interviewing his staff and reviewing their emails in a search for misconduct.

Following the investigation, the PEER complaint cited other actions against Lundgren that included having his grant research proposals rejected, throwing his lab into disarray when he was denied his grant-seeking efforts.

The complaint documented alleged violations of departmental policy and abuses of authority by agency managers named in it, which constitutes a protected disclosure under the Whistleblower Protection Act, according to PEER.

"You can do whatever science you want, as long as it has no real-world applications," PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch said. "That’s what the USDA is saying to its scientists.

"Dr. Lundgren’s case underscores why legal protections for government scientists are sorely needed," he said. The group is providing legal services in the whistleblower complaint.

Lundgren was the lead scientist on several projects at his facility, the North Central Agricultural Research Laboratory in South Dakota, prior to suspension. He could not be reached directly for comment about his complaint.