INTA fired a scientist for ‘irregularities.’ Colleagues say it was her findings

This piece was co-written by Marina Peña and Juan Pérgola

Scientist Virginia Aparicio was dismissed in late October from Argentina’s National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA, for its Spanish initials) over alleged irregularities in her research into the effects of agrochemicals on people, animals, and the environment.

Aparicio and many in the Argentine scientific community, on the other hand, have described her dismissal as blatant persecution. 

The scientist and her colleagues have based their claims on the fact that the INTA blocked a scheduled public presentation of her research findings in 2023, which revealed widespread pesticide exposure among Argentine participants and thus raised serious public health concerns. 

INTA also withdrew its participation from Aparicio’s international project regarding this research and launched an investigation against her in December 2023. That investigation ultimately led to her dismissal this October, fueling suspicions that she had been punished for research that could potentially be detrimental to Argentina’s agricultural production system.  

The reasons INTA gave for her dismissal Aparicio, who holds a PhD in agricultural sciences, had worked at INTA for more than 20 years, studying agrochemicals, and was also a researcher of Argentina’s National Scientific and Technical Research Council (in Spanish, CONICET).

The INTA Board of Directors formally approved her dismissal on October 26, following an administrative investigation launched in 2023 into alleged irregularities in her research.

The allegations centered on an international research project known as SPRINT (Sustainable Plant Protection Transition: A Global Health Approach), launched in 2020 to investigate pesticide exposure and its potential effects on human health and the environment.

Funded by the European Union and coordinated by Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands, the project aimed to “assess the impacts of pesticides and their mixtures on human health, plants, animals, and the environment.”

In 2023, the project raised troubling concerns about pesticide exposure in Argentina.

Aparicio and other researchers detected glyphosate in nearly 90% of human blood samples and chlorpyrifos in 37.7%. Pesticide residues were also found in surface water, air, food, household dust, and soil.

INTA subsequently suspended the public presentation of these results in June 2023, removed Aparicio from the project, and initiated disciplinary proceedings in December 2023 that ultimately led to her dismissal in October 2026. 

Aparicio received the harshest disciplinary sanction under Argentina’s public employment laws. The measure permanently removes her from INTA and bars her from continuing work in the country’s national public administration.

The decision to dismiss Aparicio, formally known as Resolution No. 366, was signed by Nicolás Bronzovich, president of INTA’s Board of Directors. It accused Aparicio of violating laws prohibiting the use of official authority for purposes unrelated to her duties and the improper use of state resources. 

Among the main allegations, INTA questioned the shipment of human biological samples from Argentina to laboratories abroad. The original agreement stipulated that analyses would be conducted in Argentina, but samples were sent overseas without evidence of the required institutional authorization. Project funds were also used to cover shipping costs.

INTA also questioned the involvement of former researcher José Luis Costa, Aparicio’s partner, who no longer had an active institutional affiliation. Costa was allegedly assigned coordination duties and given access to confidential information without formal authorization.

Other concerns included the management of European Union funds and the replacement of the ethics committee stipulated in the grant agreement with an external body.

What Aparicio and her defense have said Aparicio posted a video on Instagram on October 28 urging her supporters to continue standing by her.

“A campaign was then launched to discredit both the research and my role within it. The inquiry concluded with my dismissal from the public service, a decision handed down by INTA’s Board of Directors and its president,” Aparicio said.

“I am infinitely grateful for all that support, and I ask that you continue to stand with me; INTA must be held accountable for violating the rights of the volunteers who participated in this project — volunteers to whom we owe the information we now possess,” she said.

On that same day, her lawyer, Mario Bolla, told La Izquierda Diario outlet that he was preparing a legal challenge in federal court in Mar del Plata to overturn the sanction and allow Aparicio to continue working.

Bolla has also questioned the severe penalties imposed, which extend beyond preventing her from continuing her research at INTA. They also include a prohibition on holding public-sector employment for at least five years, despite the agency’s acknowledgement that she didn’t personally profit from the alleged misconduct and had no prior disciplinary record, as the attorney has pointed out.

Aparicio was also prohibited from formally meeting with volunteers monitored during the study.

Bolla said the decision had broader implications.

“This measure is not only destroying the career of an outstanding scientist; it is also violating the public’s right to access environmental information and information concerning public health — obligations undertaken by the Argentine State when it ratified the Escazú Agreement into law,” he told Página 12 outlet.

The controversy gained increasing attention throughout 2026 as reports emerged that Aparicio could lose her job.

What the Argentine scientific community says Throughout the proceedings, professional associations and trade unions criticized INTA’s actions, arguing that they amounted to government persecution and censorship aimed at preventing the research findings from becoming public.

To support their claims, they point to several factors, including what they describe as the first dismissal of its kind in INTA’s 70-year history, the agency’s decision to block the presentation of Aparicio’s research findings, and the severity of the sanction imposed, even though Aparicio did not benefit from the alleged misconduct. 

Organizations including the National University of Río Negro and the Confederation of Education Workers of the Argentine Republic (CTERA), publicly opposed her dismissal.

SPRINT volunteers also expressed concern.

“Large quantities of pesticides were found in my body, and I demand an end to the persecution of our colleague Virginia Aparicio,” said Nair Pereira, a SPRINT volunteer and CONICET researcher, in a video circulated through the Instagram account Todxs por Virginia.

Ana Velez, another CONICET researcher, also expressed support.

“No to the dismissal of Virginia Aparicio, and enough with the persecution of the scientific community,” Velez said.

Aparicio, meanwhile, has continued calling for scientific freedom and public access to SPRINT’s research findings.

“We must recognize that in a democracy, we cannot tolerate censorship, persecution, or the suppression of the freedom to conduct research,” she said in her Instagram video. “Science is countered with more science, not with less.”