In December, after more than a decade of negotiations and hearings, both houses of the US Congress unanimously passed a bipartisan bill aimed at providing legal safeguards for federal employees who disclose alleged wrongdoing occurring in government. The bill, called the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, seemed poised to be signed into law. But late in the afternoon on the final day of the congressional session, an anonymous Republican senator thwarted the antisecrecy reform by placing a secret 'hold' on the bill, which effectively killed the measure.

Now, with a new Congress in session, the bill—which, for the first time, included specific protections for federal scientists—must be reintroduced for a new round of voting and potential roadblocks. And, until it passes, federal scientists preparing to report abuse, waste or fraud in the government may be better off holding their tongues, experts say.

“Under current whistleblower laws, which are very weak in the way they've been enforced and implemented, [scientists] have no recourse if they're retaliated against for complaining,” says Celia Wexler, Washington, DC representative for the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a nonpartisan advocacy organization based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

When government scientists do blow the whistle, they often face demotion, rescinded security clearance, forced relocation or other sanctions. In 2006, for example, Rosemary Johann-Liang, a former manager in the US Food and Drug Administration's drug safety unit, was verbally reprimanded and excluded from safety meetings after recommending that the diabetes drug Avandia include a warning for congestive heart failure.

As a result, many federal scientists are unwilling to come forward to report instances of wrongdoing. In a recent UCS survey of more than 3,000 scientists polled across nine government agencies, around two in five said they feared retaliation for speaking out about their agency's work.

The failed legislative action sought to allay those concerns by explicitly including anticensorship protections for federal scientists who might face retaliation for openly expressing misgivings about suppression or distortion of government research. Under the proposed bill, whistleblowers would also have a right to trial by jury to challenge disciplinary actions taken against them. “It would go a long way toward ensuring scientists are not intimidated and research is not tampered with,” says Angela Canterbury, director of public policy at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), a Washington, DC–based watchdog group.

But until such measures are passed, scientists are better off not exposing themselves, according to Paul Thacker, a POGO investigator and former congressional staffer who spearheaded Republican Iowa Senator Charles Grassley's probes into the financial ties between industry and government-funded scientists. “The best way to protect yourself is not to say anything,” he says. “You don't always need to come out and be on the evening news.” Instead of going public themselves, Thacker advises scientists with concerns over misconduct to leak key documents to reporters or members of Congress.