This is a heady day. For the first time, perhaps, we can actually say that the Bush administration, charged with some type of interference with science, has responded by cleaning up its act, rather than by denying or ignoring that the problem exists. Alas, it's really only a small sliver of the administration that is behaving in such a constructive manner. Nevertheless, it's a start.
The agency to be commended appears to be NASA, which is going to let its scientists speak freely (as long as they don't claim to represent the agency) and which is being praised by said scientists for doing so. James Hansen, for one, appears satisfied: He sent around an email saying he's going to stop stumping on the integrity-of-science issue and get back to real research.
NASA presents an interesting case study, especially since it now stands out from the rest of the Bush administration in this respect. After all, as Rick Piltz and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility have pointed out, EPA has been entirely unshaken by recent revelations and says it will continue screening all press requests for interviews of agency scientists.
Why is NASA different? I don't know much about the agency's own culture, so I can't speak to that. But I can say the following: 1) The clampdown on James Hansen got a lot of negative media attention, and without negative media attention, reforms of this sort rarely happen; 2) For once, the chief House Republican with oversight over the agency in question (NASA) actually decided to kick some butt over science-politics problems. I'm referring to Sherwood Boehlert, who asked NASA what the heck was going on when the Hansen story hit the news. Not surprisingly, this actually prompted a constructive response.
If we want the science-politics situation in the Bush administration to improve, then, there are at least two necessary ingredients: We need more scientists willing to speak out and journalists willing to cover their stories; and we need the GOP Congress to start taking a real interest in this problem. Alas, in general I suspect the former is much more likely to occur than the latter.
P.S.: We should add, as GrrlScientist already noted, that NASA also appears to be walking the walk with its press releases, which now actually acknowledge straight up that global warming is underway.
- Log in to post comments
I should also think another reason is the 'pride' that most Americans have (or should have) in what NASA has accomplished. That alone would give NASA a kind of power that other scientific organisations in the US probably wouldn't have. When someone like George Douchce makes a mockery of NASA, he's making a mockery of America and American science.
Not even the Bush administration would be clueless enough not to realise the implications of that.
It's a relief to see reasonable people prevailing. Things were beginning to look a bit Soviet over there at NASA.
I wonder if it's possible to do some sort of FOIA inquiry into the hiring process that got George Deutsch in there. I know you put some details of this sort in the RWOS (e. g., the screening checklist used to test the ideological loyalty of prospective officials). If you got enough info to give a vivid picture of Deutsch's hiring process, this could provide a good window into how these kinds of things work under this administration...
Chris Monney said "We need more scientists willing to speak out and journalists willing to cover their stories"
What about "Administrators of scientific agencies like NASA who are willing to do their job"?
If NASA chief Michael Griffin had been doing his job to begin with (which he CLEARLY was not), it would NOT have been necessary for Hansen to go to the news media in the first place.
It is highly unlikely that Hansen chose the news media route as a FIRST remedy -- ie, that he did not first complain to NASA administrators.
Whether he complained directly to Griffin or not is irrelevant. The head of an organization is supposed to set the tone and make sure that those under him carry out policy.
Given the history of NASA and the history of the Bush administration with regard to bureaucratic interference with science, Griffin should have made it clear at the getgo that such inteference would not be tolerated on his watch. It should not have taken a New York Times article to compel him to do so.
This is welcome news.
But it's a mistake to think this amounts to "a hill of beans", or that the problem is one specific to the Bush administration. The far right is in control of the entire Republican party. Most of the general "anti-science" atmosphere is generated, directly or indirectly, from them sacrificing science to the creation of, and then the activation of, voting blocks.
Over the last eight years all we've seen is the opening skirmish.
I'm don't think we can declare victory at NASA yet. It's far too soon. The new policy is still in draft form and hasn't been implemented for even a brief amount of time.
And note that Hansen's actual statement (quoted in the NY Times, emphasis mine) is
Stay vigilant. Once the heat is off, Bush's NASA may likely revert to their old ways.