Link to Reference: Environment News Service, Feb 17, 2006

Return to: watercenter.org sciencefaircenter.com watercenter.net

Highlights:
- Despite public concerns about Bush administration political interference with science, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requiring prior headquarters approval for all communications by its scientists with the media
- The EPA’s screening of all press interviews is at variance with recent pronouncements of scientific openness by two other federal agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
- “Why are scientists at NASA free to answer questions about global warming while their colleagues at EPA are not?” asked PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Science does not come in Republican or Democratic flavors; scientists should be able to discuss findings without having to check whether facts comport with management policy.”

WASHINGTON, DC, February 17, 2006 (ENS) - Despite public concerns about Bush administration political interference with science, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requiring prior headquarters approval for all communications by its scientists with the media, according to an agency email released Thursday by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a national association of government workers in natural resource agencies.

The EPA’s screening of all press interviews is at variance with recent pronouncements of scientific openness by two other federal agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

In a February 9, 2006 email to all staff, Ann Brown the news director for the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), wrote, “We are asked to remind all employees that EPA's standard media procedure is to refer all media queries regarding ORD to Ann Brown, ORD News Director, prior to agreeing to or conducting any interviews…Support for this policy also will allow reasonable time for appropriate management response.” By contrast, on February 4, 2006, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin sent an all-employee email in which he committed the agency to “open scientific and technical inquiry and dialogue with the public.”

Griffin wrote, “It is not the job of public affairs officers to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff.”

On February 10, 2006, NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher told The Washington Post that “I encourage scientists to conduct peer-reviewed research and provide the honest results of those findings,” adding that “My policy…is to have a free and open organization.”

“Why are scientists at NASA free to answer questions about global warming while their colleagues at EPA are not?” asked PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Science does not come in Republican or Democratic flavors; scientists should be able to discuss findings without having to check whether facts comport with management policy.”

Scientists often fall outside the coverage of whistleblower protection laws, says Ruch, so scientists who violate agency gag rules may be punished for insubordination.

Legislation that would grant scientists the right to openly discuss their findings is pending before both houses of Congress. California Representative Henry Waxman, a Democrat, introduced HR 839 in the House, and Illinois Senator Richard Durbin, also a Democrat, introduced S 1358 in the Senate.