A recent report card grading 15 federal agencies found inconsistent policies for releasing scientific information to the public. The analysis also showed that several agencies stifle their scientists' communication, causing scientists to fear retaliation for speaking their minds. Although some agencies have satisfactory policies or recently improved media policies, it appears much still needs to be done to ensure scientific information gets to the public.

On Oct. 17, the nonprofit scientific research and advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released its report grading fifteen federal regulatory and scientific agencies on their policies controlling communication between staff scientists and the news media and the public. The report examined agencies' official policies governing such communication, as well as the implementation of the policies. The report card assigned each agency two scores: a letter grade (A through F or incomplete) for its media policy and a ranking (unsatisfactory to outstanding) for its practices.

Numerous federal agencies did poorly on both policy and practice, although there were a few exceptions; inconsistency across the government was the key finding of the report. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) received the only failing grade of the fifteen agencies for its media policy. At OSHA, most agency scientists told UCS they could not speak freely or feared retaliation for stating their personal scientific opinions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Bureau of Land Management all received a grade of D for their official media policies. These agencies did just as poorly in practice, receiving ratings of "unsatisfactory" or "needs improvement" for the implementation of their media policies.

A few agencies, however, did well in the media communication rankings. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received the only A grade for its policy governing communication between its scientists and the media. However, although the official policy received an A, the implementation of the policy was deemed to need improvement. One CDC scientist complained that in practice, the agency's chief information officers "have power to kill publications if they don't like the message by not clearing the manuscript, and sometimes do, even when it is good science."

Other high-ranking policies were identified at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which earned a B+, and at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Census Bureau, which each received a grade of B. The respectable score earned by NASA represents a major improvement to an agency that had received much criticism in the past for its science communications policy.

The report concludes by urging the next administration to require all federal agencies to adopt policies that ensure free and open communications between scientists, the media, policymakers, and the public. New guidelines established by the president's Office of Science and Technology Policy provide a good starting point for improving the openness policies of other agencies. These guidelines, listed in a memorandum released in May, encourage clear, well publicized policies for making scientific data available to the public; affirm the right of scientists to discuss their research publicly; and promote policies to resolve disputes.

Two tenets of scientific communication should underlay an agency's media policies, according to the report's authors. First, government scientists should be allowed to publicly express their personal views, provided they express a disclaimer that they are not representing the views of the agency. Second, scientists should be allowed to review, approve, and comment on any government document that draws on their research or scientific views.

UCS tracked down each agency's official media policy, either on the agency's website or through a Freedom of Information Act request. If no policy was found, the agency received a grade of "incomplete." Policies were evaluated on six broad categories that included dealing with promotion of openness, handling disputes, and protecting scientific free speech. Each agency's practice evaluation was based on the results of more than 6,000 questionnaires UCS sent to government scientists, of which 739 surveys were completed. The questions covered issues related to protections of scientific free speech, openness, the handling of disputes, safeguards against abuse, and more.

The report card comes after several years of controversy surrounding the White House's science communications policies, especially regarding climate change. The administration has been repeatedly accused of politicizing science. The policies controlling communications between government scientists and the public have been criticized extensively in recent years by watchdog groups and by the Government Accountability Office. Numerous reports of editing and censoring scientific information for partisan political purposes have brought the issue to the forefront.

The open exchange of scientific data among scientists and the public is vital to creating sound public policies and implementing them effectively. The report's authors describe a strong democracy as dependent on "well-informed citizens who have access to comprehensive and reliable information about their government's activities."

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists Freedom to Speak report