An article just posted at Newsvine talks about possible government censorship oversight of scientific findings at the USGS. Basically, scientific results have to be vetted by a committee before they can go public.
At first blush, this doesn’t sound so bad. If a scientist publishes some results, the paper will have their name as well as the USGS name on it, so it’s not too much to ask that the paper be run through the system first.
But this comes at something of a bad time for scientific publishing by government supported scientists…
“This is not about stifling or suppressing our science, or politicizing our science in any way,” Barbara Wainman, the agency’s director of communications, said Wednesday.
I don’t mean to be alarmist, but I’ve heard this before. I heard it from NASA (try this post from Integrity of Science too), from NOAA, from the EPA, from the FDA. I’d feel better about her statement if there weren’t a list a mile long of scientific suppression going on right now that can be traced to the White House. After many such instances, my credulousness is stretched a mite thin…
… especially when, two paragraphs later, the article states
The new requirements state that the USGS’s communications office must be “alerted about information products containing high-visibility topics or topics of a policy-sensitive nature.”
The agency’s director, Mark Myers, and its communications office also must be told — prior to any submission for publication — “of findings or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are developed.”
If they only want to ensure a single voice and to keep scientists neutral, then it should be applied evenly, don’t you think, and not just on sensitive issues — that is, issues which are reality-based, and therefore contrary to much of what the current government would prefer to hear.
I will say that all of this can very well be innocuous: agencies do need to make sure that scientists don’t go off half-cocked and start talking about their results to the public when it’s all too easy for those findings to be misunderstood (this is a constant problem in the health industry especially). But again, how many times must our science be stomped upon before we get a little itchy when announcements like this are made?
I’m way past that number. And I itch all over.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Reality, reality, reality. Why do you hate harmonizing so much? Aren’t you interested in product flow? I for one welcome our buzzword-babbling PR-centric scientific overlords. Now I’m sure that our government information products will be impeccablistic! HUZZAH!
Yes, this is how I achieved my precious bad karma at slashdot several years ago.
I feel your pain.
December 15th, 2006 at 3:56 am
To be fair, published research on “high visibility/policy sensitive topics” (what could they be talking about?) is what is going to prompt journalists and other interested parties to contact the USGS asking for information and comments. Making sure that the people answering the phones are up to speed on this stuff is not an altogether bad thing.
That said, the broad wording of these guidelines, in the current climate, make it hard not to be a little suspicious.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:16 am
Kinda makes me sad to remember that my father worked in the USGS for over 30 years. Granted, he was in the cartography division(? I guess that’s what I’ll call it) instead of a research division, but still.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:57 am
Can save on embarassment from the occasional self-promoter, (”That never happens in science!”). Two words, “Cold Fusion”. Also, how many researchers do outside work for the privates sector. Conflict of interest? No way!
December 15th, 2006 at 7:57 am
Although this bothers me, I am not at all surprised. This kind of thing has happened before in Bush’s Administration and I am sure it will happen again. That being said, I agree with you Phil. Our science has been stomped on too many times, and as a registered voter, I find that unacceptable.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:39 am
oh geeze you’re right BA this just makes my a## twitch….
with this administration’s track record in these matters we’re way beyond giving them the benefit of the doubt.
the SURVEY…. damn that’s just depressing.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:51 am
I agree with gengar. As someone who works in science communication, there have been far too many times that our office was the LAST to know about a key research finding. Learning about important work when the reporter calls to ask for details is not fun!
I can understand Phil’s suspicion given the current political climate. But the only thing I find remotely suspicious about the wording is the part on “notifying the proper officials.” Even then, if we are working on communication strategies for a new discovery, we’re going to let the head of our institution know, so that might be all they meant. I really think they’re just aiming for appropriate communication at all levels and advance notice of findings so they can be prepared if/when the press calls.
Oh, and if they’re short-staffed like so many science communication groups, they might not want to have to field and vet EVERY publication. Hence the wording on “especially newsworthy” etc.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:14 am
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/13/mccain-war-on-blogs/
I wonder how long it will be before they start actively sensoring political sites like China does.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Thanks for the link love, Dr. BA.
It really burns me that this administration feels like it can just go around rewriting reality to suit its agenda.
It’s despicable, and it is every citizen’s responsibility to stand up and so “No more”.
Otherwise, we’re headed back to the 13th century.
Thank you for continuing to keep this kind of thing in the public’s eye.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:07 am
BA said,”I’d feel better about her statement if there weren’t a list a mile long of scientific suppression going on right now that can be traced to the White House. ”
OK BA, where’s your proof or is this just your prejudice showing AGAIN.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:09 am
OK BA, where’s your proof or is this just your prejudice showing AGAIN.
You must not read the news very often.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:13 am
If it weren’t for the sordid history of this administration’s suppression of science that contradicts “policy” this news wouldn’t be worth the electrons it takes to route it on the Internet. Given the history, it’s as suspicious as seeing Tony Soprano walk into a restaurant carrying a violin case.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:30 am
It seems to me that if they were interested in scientific correctness they would be reviewing all information that gets published, not just the stuff that is highly visible or politically sensitive. Otherwise, it sounds like they are worried more about pissing someone off than it being scientifically sound.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Uh, DJ, in this very post I have several links to science suppression at NASA, NOAA, FDA, and the EPA. All have been linked to White House policies.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Reason #13 to vote for Pharyngula…
This will be my last plea for your vote, to the relief of many. My next comment on this subject will be a miserable concession speech glorious in-your-face crow of triumph, after all the votes have been counted and……
December 15th, 2006 at 11:21 am
How the BBC is reporting this
I am surprised that your are forgetting the old proverb “He who pays the piper calles the tune”
December 15th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Science Is Taking Another Beating…
Science is taking another beating at the hands of the George Orwell Bush Administration. Scientists who are studying both natural and human effects on global climate change are now without several huge repositories of historical and current data on th…
December 15th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Sticks: Since I’m one of those who “pay the piper”, as in a taxpayer, I demand impartial science reporting. Dammit, it’s my taxpayers right to know the uncensored research.
GAry 7
December 15th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
“It seems to me that if they were interested in scientific correctness they would be reviewing all information that gets published, not just the stuff that is highly visible or politically sensitive.”
They do. They can’t release a paper for review outside the USGS until they review it internally. Right royal pain in the schedule for non-USGS co-authors, but it does cut down on the oopses that make it into print.
I can’t really tell if the substance of the requirements is “Let us know before you sic the press dogs on us” or “You can’t say that!”
December 16th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Outsiders, that is people from the rest of the world, wonder why you can not see what is happening in the world today. On British TV some 18 months ago a programme contrasted information we and other countries were given about global warming what what the US people were shown. Back then we were told how the US government censored what could and could not be shown.
Not only that but we get CNN and wonder why a news item is not covered or sometimes more worrieing why CNN say the complete oppersit of what we have been told. I am sorry if it has come as a bit of a shock about the science issues but it goes a lot deeper.
Forget whether someone will misunderstand; what about the free speech you are always going on about. Dont you have a constitution thingy !!
December 17th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
I also have wondered why foreign news sources seemed to have details that NEVER surfaced in the American outlets, at least since the Shrub took office. But hey, Jesus knows best, right?
Jess Tauber
March 16th, 2007 at 8:31 am
[...] obvious, sweeping, and routine suppression of scientific findings for the past few years. Examples of this aren’t terribly hard to dig up. And those are just from my site. Try going to Chris [...]