White House Tightens Publishing Rules for USGS Scientists
(LiveScience) The Bush administration is clamping down on scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, who study everything from caribou mating to global warming, subjecting them to controls on research that might go against official policy. New rules require screening of all facts and interpretations by agency scientists. The rules apply to all scientific papers and other public documents, even minor reports or prepared talks, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. Top officials at the Interior Department’s scientific arm say the rules only standardize what scientists must do to ensure the quality of their work and give a heads-up to the agency’s public relations staff.
Mystech: Under the cover of ensuring quality and product flow, the real agenda is obfuscating “politically sensitive” scientific findings. Because what you know can hurt them.
“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 have approval authority. What it was designed to do is to improve our product flow.”
Some agency scientists, who until now have felt free from any political interference, worry that the objectivity of their work could be compromised.
“I feel as though we’ve got someone looking over our shoulder at every damn thing we do. And to me that’s a very scary thing. I worry that it borders on censorship,” said Jim Estes, an internationally recognized marine biologist who works for the geological unit. “The explanation was that this was intended to ensure the highest possible quality research,” said Estes, a researcher at the agency for more than 30 years. “But to me it feels like they’re doing this to keep us under their thumbs. It seems like they’re afraid of science. Our findings could be embarrassing to the administration.”
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.”
Patrick Leahy, USGS’s head of geology and its acting director until September, said Wednesday that the new procedures would improve scientists’ accountability and “harmonize” the review process. He said they are intended to maintain scientists’ neutrality.
“Our scientific staff is second to none,” he said. “This notion of scientific gotcha is something we do not want to participate in. That does not mean to avoid contentious issues.”
The changes amount to an overhaul of commonly accepted procedures for all scientists, not just those in government, based on anonymous peer reviews. In that process, scientists critique each other’s findings to determine whether they deserve to be published.
From now on, USGS supervisors will demand to see the comments of outside peer reviewers’ as well any exchanges between the scientists who are seeking to publish their findings and the reviewers.
The Bush administration, as well as the Clinton administration before it, has been criticized over scientific integrity issues. In 2002, the USGS was forced to reverse course after warning that oil and gas drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would harm the Porcupine caribou herd. One week later a new report followed, this time saying the caribou would not be affected.
What stumps me is not that they’re requiring supervisory review by the USGS above peer review of articles that might be “sensitive,” or portray government policy in a poor light…but that they’re doing it openly, and just assuming public support and/or acquiscence.
On the other hand, we’ve provided tacit approval to a lot of other, far more outrageous policies, so it’s probably a safe assumption.
So what could the Bush administration be so afraid of? I’m thinking conclusive global warming data; we know the petrochemical industry has W. to thank for his unrelenting G8 stance that Gore is Chicken Little and there is no global warming.
Will we be able to reverse the damage this moron has done once he’s gone? I remember the Reagan and the environmental issues he shot down. I voted for both these guys, and you won’t find me chained to a tree to save an owl, but come on. There is enough body of evidence to show we are screwing up and change needs to happen.
You know that “Separation of Church and State” thing worked so well, maybe we should give “Separation of Science and State” a shot next. 😉
This isn’t really anything new. A few years back, my friend Valerie, who worked for one of the Federally-funded National Laboratories, resigned her post because her Post-Doctoral degree research work on vision for Artificial Intelligence systems was all going to be channelled into the military first. Any humanitarian or even civilian use would have to wait until many, many years later. (by the way, when she left the Labs, she took her unpublished research, which they did not own as yet, with her; she then started The Glabol Dialog [sic] project instead.) Although I see the necessity of having a strong Defense for the United States, this attitude amongst the hawks ( how many times over do we really need to be alble to destroy the entire Earth with Hydrogen bombs? ) has always been prevalent. “Give us the new research for WAR first, maybe someone can have a little bit later on during peacetime”…
What is new here however is the cavalier attitude toward censorship.
While I do acknowledge the need for national defense (military, etc), I think you and her were both right to be concerned with the priority of military research over just about every other priority in this country. Good for her choosing to pursue her own path and principles!
Speaking as one of the “hawks” who works for the federal government, I’d like to chime in and remind you that the chances of research being able to advance is often because the federal government has the money to advance it. Now that she has followed her conscience, let’s hope she can find sufficient grant money to continue the research.
And the answer to your question is: only once. Although AI systems most certainly would have helped us blow it up at least three or four more times. You know, to continue targeting after there was no discernable movement left.
If that sounds ludicrous, just remember that there are actually PEOPLE in the military and the federal government. We have lives, consciences and families just like those who take pot shots at the work we do for our country.
I think it’s important not to confuse the people employed by the military industry with the ideology of military spending. That same money spend on energy research, social improvement, the environment, education, etc would still allow each and every one of the job, economic and research advantages that are often attributed exclusively to military spending.