Occupational Safety and Health Administration Logs - Should federal scientists have the freedom to publicly communicate their findings; publish their work; ...?

Should federal scientists have the freedom to publicly communicate their findings; publish their work; ...?

Should federal scientists have the freedom to publicly communicate their findings; publish their work; disclose misrepresentation, censorship or other abuses; and have their technical work evaluated by peers -- all without fear of retribution? There have been numerous and detailed instances of political interference with science within several federal agencies, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Food and Drug Administration, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute of Health, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Several federal scientists have recently claimed that the Bush administration has created a hostile work environment within scientific agencies. Among their claims, reports being edited to misrepresent scientific findings, agencies reluctance to regulate products, scientific findings ignored in policy rulings, and resistance to scientific appointments. Examples: The Union of Concerned Scientists has created the A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science that include several well documented examples: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html This question relates directly to global warming because there has been a huge systemic effort by the Bush administration to censor climate science and misrepresent scientific findings. For more information, listen to NPR “Science Friday” Science News Hour: http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200802151 . . . . . . . Mt. zion… I didn’t know that consumer protection, drug safety, and the environment were “silly issues”. It is OK to have different opinions and a different set of beliefs. It is not OK to have a different set of “facts” that are not supported by observations. Mt. zion… Also, federal scientists work for the public, and NOT for President Bush. Jim Z, I believe that there have been numerous examples of political interference with science BECAUSE there is extensive documentation of this, not because of political reasons. See the A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science for specific examples: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html Dr Jello, you are wrong. I work as a nurse; and not only do I have the ability to report such things as Medicare fraud, alleged patient harm and abuse, wrongdoings, and misconducts, I have the RESPONSIBILITY to do so. The deniers seem to have a “Father’s Knows Best” opinion. Anyone who goes against what father has said is to be punished and silenced. They want top scientists to seek permission from “minders” before participating in an interview. Never mind that the public has PAID for this research and is entitled to uncensored results. Having political minders sounds much more like Iran than the United States, and I believe that our Democracy is in trouble. Also, Crazy Conservative, your argument that climatologists are just seeking more grant money fails the “logic” test. What the scientists are saying is that the science is conclusive, not perfect, but good enough that that action is now needed to reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions. Based on the strength of this conclusion, many politicians have started saying "the science is settled." If the climatologists were simply seeking additional funding, then they would be saying the exact opposite, that they are unsure of the cause of recent global warming. If you want to maximize funding, you say that the science is unsettled, not claim a scientific consensus the anthropogenic global warming is unequivocal.

Public Comments

The Bush administration, corrupt? NO way! ..........
You should be an advocate of who you work for. If you can't do that then you should quit and work somewhere else. We didn't put Bush in office to kowtow to the liberals and their silly agendas.
Yes. Freedom of speech and information is critical to prevent government from turning controlling and oppressive. Restrict free speech, and the next thing you know you'll have other foundations of the Constitution undermined: - unauthorized, unsupervised and unconstitutional surveillance of citizens - denial of due process - indefinite holding of suspects who have not been tried or even formally accused of any criminal charge - torture of suspects, in violation of international law - covert military action in countries where no war has been declared (Pakistan) - assignment of political appointees to government offices to ensure complete unilateral control of all branches and functions of government - evading congressional and judiciary probes into administration behavior, including destruction of evidence What led to those changes, and what form of government ultimately results? Former Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton defines fascism's essence as: 1....a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination."[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism It's sobering to see that the excuses given for undermining the Constitution due to the U.S. "War on Terror" could easily be lifted from an instruction manual for facism. We have to ask ourselves if fascist government control is really what the United States stands for, the direction we want to go for ourselves, and the example that we want to set for the world. We have an opportunity to vote on that this Fall.
I don't know, should the Surgeon General be allowed to speak about her solution to curb teen sex?
Just because a few scientists whine, doesn't make it fact. Why are you so quick to believe. You obviously believe it for political reasons just as you probably believe in human caused harmful warming based on political reasons IMO.
If the intended audience of a published work is within the group we call scientists, and the work does not disclose military or industrial secrets to enemies, yes, they should be free to publish. However, this question is not really about peer review science, is it. We are really talking about rebutting journalists who distort or misrepresent the work the scientist has done. We are even getting close to asking that scientists be free to abandon the work they are doing to fight the battle of bashing by pundits, and political distortions... including distortions by the president, Now when I worked for a large corporation, if I published anything, and it was then reviewed by the broad press, I was forbidden to respond directly. I had to prepare a response and pass it by corporate legal and technical people to determine that my rebuttal was provable in court, that it did not even appear to change my original. If I wanted to change my original so that it would not be misunderstood, I would not be allowed to lambaste the person who had misunderstood, nor raise questions of motive for misunderstanding. But I could publish an addendum that corrected previous shortcomings of mine. I do not feel that a scientist will necessarily be well advised to get into fighting with politicians, because politicians are always going to leave the stage leaving the impression that if they have understood, it is your fault. If I did understand I am representing some voters, so nuts to you. Tell the story to fellow scientists, convince them,
Of curse scientists should be free to say and speak as they wish--about science or anything else. The only exception is when technology directly affects national defense (e.g. data on nuclear weapons technology)--but thatis a well understood issue that is well defined and clearly governed by law. This ongoing censorship by the Bush administration is simply one more example of the corruption of te Bush regime (speciffically, their payoffs to the oil companies)--and their hostility toward the freedom andrights of the American people.
If they are on the federal payroll they not only have the right, but the duty. However, any effort by the Bush administration to “censor climate science and misrepresent scientific findings” is easily balanced by organizations on the other side of the debate who do exactly the same thing in an effort to make it look like global warming is a proven fact. And as far as the Union of Concerned Scientists goes, there is hardly any organization with less integrity. They are a radical activist organization with their own political agenda, and real science doesn’t have much to do with it. Read this to find out who they REALLY are: http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/145
Great question. Objective studies are desperately needed on the new technologies, many which may be profitable in the short term, but extremely dangerous in the long term. Scientists should have the freedom and the funding to make their studies publicly available.
voice of reason - talk about apples and oranges. How can you compare distorting or censoring science coming from publicly funded government scientists with distortions from environmentalist groups? That's completely invalid. It's OK to contrast Exxon-Mobile funded scientists distortions with Green Peace funded scientists distortions, but NOT US government funded scientists. 3 wrongs don't make a right. Our US government funded scientists must be free to report openly and honestly, if we are to remain a democratic society. In just 11 months, it could be Hillary Clinton's administration trying to censor government scientists. Would you think that was OK because it balanced some other distortion funded by private sources? I should hope not.
I am guessing you are referring to Hansen from NASA. He has claimed that he is being stifled and yet, his name appears everywhere. He has done hundreds (if not thousands) of interviews and quotes. So if the Administration is trying to quite him, they are not doing a good job. More like he is a big whiner and gets upset when people do not promote his views. Maybe because of all the increased funding he has gotten in the past decade or so? Look at it this way. There are hundreds of scientist receiving big grants to study this stuff. If they come back with, "No big deal. It is natural." Do you think their grants will continue? Hell no. It is in their best interest to promote AGW. It's like all of us getting to write our own pay check.
Coming from a logging family the last place I want scientist is in the government pushing their brainwashed idealism from liberal professors who have no clue. I have watch these incompetent people ruin our federal forest cost tax payers money. These people whine on how hard they work and it seems they work hard at trying to scam the tax payers its time for them to go and get into the private industry where results manner, oops they couldn't make it.
No of course not. They do their work for the federal gvmt. They do not own their work, as they collect a salary from the gvmt, the gvmt pays for the research, the equipment, and their time. They have no more right to make publish the gvmts information than you do publishing or making public information of your company.
Anyone can say anything they want. What they can't do is speak for their employer. Also the elected government has a right to govern. There are a few activists complaining that their advice isn't being incorporated into public policy. If they want to change government policy they should run for office, that's how democracy works. How quickly left wing types abandon the idea of democracy when it doesn't suit your ideas. If you want to live in a country run by an intellectual elite who want to force their beliefs on others, you should try living in Iran.