Bush Administration Gags Scientists
by KevinMarch 10th, 2007
Talking without permission is now forbidden:
The federal agency responsible for protecting Arctic polar bears has barred two Alaska scientists from speaking about polar bears, climate change or sea ice at international meetings in the next few weeks, a move that environmentalists say is censorship.
The rule was issued last month by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service but was made public this week. The federal government has proposed listing the polar bear as a threatened species, and the wildlife agency is receiving public comment on the proposal.
“It’s a gag order,” said Deborah Williams, a former high-level Interior Department official in Anchorage who received documents Wednesday from Alaska scientists who chose to remain unnamed. The documents make the subjects of polar bears, climate change and sea ice off limits to all scientists who haven’t been cleared to speak on the topics.
Two of the memos are copies of those prepared for Craig Perham and Janet Hohn, who are traveling to Russia and Norway this month and in April. The scientists “will not be speaking on or responding to these issues” of climate change, polar bears and sea ice, the memos say. Before any trip, such a memo must be sent to the administrator of the Fish and Wildlife Service in Washington.
According to the memos, agency scientists must obtain a memorandum designating which official, if any, is allowed to respond to questions, particularly about polar bears, and include “a statement of assurance that these individuals understand the Administration’s position on these issues.”
There is only one reason to do something like this: to make sure that scientists cannot use science to contradict the statements of the Administration or highlight the incorrectness of its policy. To make it easier for the Administration to lie, in other words. And since these scientists are dealing with the effects of global warming, it seems clear that the Administration intends to lie about global warming, its effects, or their global warming policy.
Categories: Environment, General |
“off limits to all scientists who haven’t been cleared to speak on the topics.”
The gov’t has the right and responsibility to clear those who are going to speak on its behalf. What’s so unusual about that?
Clarification: Are these scientists govt employees?
Would you please source the quote? provide a link? Thanks.
Please provide backup/evidence/links/something.
Oops, link fixed.
If they keep scientists from making reports on global warming’s effects, it saves them from having to rewrite the reports the way they used to. No doubt they’re doing their part to save energy. Or something.
Fred -
I’m prepared to assume they are federal employees. Makes no difference: Telling scientists, including government employees, that they are not allowed to speak on or respond to questions within their area of expertise is indeed highly unusual. Or at least it used to be.
If they were out there as representatives of administration policy, there would be an argument to be made for limiting what they say, since their job would be to argue for that policy. But they’re not - they’re out there representing science. I think everyone would have to agree there is a difference.
“I’m prepared to assume they are federal employees”
When you find out, get back with us. It does make a difference.
The truth is in the article.
They are scientists employed by the government.
They are traveling on a government funded trip as part of the US delegation.
They are being told the government doesn’t want anyone other than the official government spokesperson making comments that can be seen as policy.
It is no different than any company stating who can make official pronouncements on their behalf.
The government spokesperson even said they can talk as much as they want, they just are not allowed to speak on behalf of the government at news conferences.
This is clearly a case of trying to paint the current administration in a negative light with half-truths and intentional misleading.
Big U -
The truth is indeed in the article. Too bad in your eagerness to believe the official line you missed that truth so completely.
Yes, officials say they don’t want the scientists making “policy statements.” But the ban is not limited to that - the entire subjects of polar bears, climate change, and sea ice have been declared off limits. And it was not just at “news conferences” it was any “formal setting,” which would also include presenting a paper or offering commentary at sessions of science conferences or meetings. That goes far beyond just limiting “policy statements.” The claim that this is not a gag order because the scientists can still have private conversations over dinner is laughable.
And in any event, as I noted above, such an order directed at scientists at least used to be very unusual.
They’re not forced to work for the government. Their choice comes with limits. And in the past, people used to respect their employer’s limits. Not the case anymore.
Big U
But they work for the people fo the united states, not for the temporary occupant of the White House. Their job is to provide the country with the best scientific work that they can. It is not and has never been to keep silent in the face of lies from the executive branch, no matter who sits there.
I’m not saying they need to keep quiet. The way I read the article was that they could not speak on behalf of the administration on any of these matters. If they want to speak as individuals that is their choice, but it makes sense that the administration choose who does their official speaking.
You are right, they work for the people of the United States, but guess what, so does every government employee and none of them are allowed to make statements that could be seen as being the government’s official position without first obtaining approval.
Like I said, if they want to speak, let them. Just not in an official government capacity. If they oppose government policy, let them do so, just not while they are speaking on behalf of the government being paid by the government at international meetings.
Do any of you think that if Al Bore was president that he would allow any scientist who did not toe the manmade global warming religion to speak as a government spokesman?
Seems to me some folks are confusing the scientific method (small m) with policy promulgation. For centuries the generally accepted approach to advancing science has included disparate groups doing research, compiling their findings, and then presenting their findings to the scientific community at large. There are many reasons why this is good for science.
While some would conflate science and policy, most are able to differentiate between the two. To the degree scientists are hampered from sharing their research on environmental and climatic issues, I think it is a bad thing. Regardless of what their findings are.
“To the degree scientists are hampered from sharing their research on environmental and climatic issues, I think it is a bad thing. Regardless of what their findings are.”
So scientists are exempt from the rules that all other employees are held to? Why don’t you try setting policy and being the spokesman for your employer even if you are told not to?
I respect scientists, but they are not little all-knowing gods.
For anyone who desires an example of my previous observation that “some would conflate science and policy”, please see the comment above. It is a perfect example of what I was referring to.
To expand on that point, I believe it is beneficial to the public for our government to fund scientific research in certain areas. True research, i.e. scientific study not encumbered by a prejudicial considerations. I would also hope that policy makers avail themselves of the relevant research, and make policy based, in part, on that research. To achieve the best science, there should be a semi-permeable wall between researchers and policy makers.
Research yielding results that might call into question existing policy none the less should be shared among the scientific community. It is then up to policy makers to evaluate the new research and possibly change policy.
I honestly don’t think anything I have written on this subject is even the slightest bit controversial. Note that I am no more suggesting that those engaged in research make policy than I am suggesting those who make policy do research.
“Note that I am no more suggesting that those engaged in research make policy than I am suggesting those who make policy do research.”
The premise of this thread is that scientists should be able to say anything they want to say. Also, the assumption is made that any thinking scientist would disagree with the administration’s position.
What is the administration’s position on polar bears? From everything I’ve read and heard, the Bush administration is buying into the religion of manmade global warming.
Fred, to the degree your comment is true, you need to address it to Kevin.
Where things get interesting is when research is done to determine the efficacy or ancillary impacts of implemented policy. If government scientists are directed to research the effects of a specific policy, and their research yields results that call said policy into question, then, by definition, the researchers must comment on policy when presenting their results. Which I support. I would not support Administration officials quashing scientific results that are at odds with favored policy. On the other hand, I would not support researchers, at their own initiative, engaging in government funded research in a premeditated attempt to undermine existing policy - or influence future policy.
Re your previous comment, I would point out that I do not advocate exempting researchers from any standing rules of employment. If rules exist that an employee disagrees with, that person should be free to attempt to change the rules, and understand that breaking said rules while they are still in force might result in disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. This should hold true in both the private and public sectors.
On a related subject, I essentially agree with Kevin’s observation that most government employees - especially researchers - should be considered as working for the betterment of the public at large and not for a specific Administration. There are practical limits to this interpretation, but I believe that to the extent that every Administration considers itself a means as opposed to an end, the public will be better served. Embrace debate, keep research open, and allow democracy to function.
Big U -
The way I read the article was that they could not speak on behalf of the administration on any of these matters. If they want to speak as individuals that is their choice
No, that’s simply not what it said - it said they could not discuss the issues in any formal setting, a restriction that goes far beyond just not speaking “on behalf of the administration.” I agree that the administration is free to choose (and to limit) who can present themselves as representing the administration’s policies. That is not the issue here - the issue is the restrictions on scientists’ freedom to present their findings and discuss their areas of expertise, restrictions that, I say yet again, were highly unusual before the Bush team hit the White House.
if they want to speak, let them. Just not in an official government capacity
Then we agree and you oppose the gag order.
“were highly unusual before the Bush team hit the White House.”
Really? LOL