Earlier this year Paul Tonko (D-NY) introduced the Scientific Integrity Act (H.R. 1709) which, among other things, would have given federal scientists the right to speak to reporters without prior approval from their agencies. A companion bill was introduced by Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI).
One might argue that provision would have done more harm to free speech than good: it would have helped entrench the idea that people have the right to speak only under special circumstances, like having a science degree. It would also have allowed agencies to require the scientists to report the subject of press interview. Having to report an interview, of course, means being prohibited from ever speaking in confidence with a reporter, routinely depriving the public of much information about what is really happening.
Nevertheless, introduction of the provision could be seen as an important step to raise the idea in Congress that silencing many thousand federal employees in terms of talking to reporters—the effect of the current heavy oversight and permission rules—might not be a good thing. However, the provision apparently offered far too much openness, and it was killed in a mark-up session on October 17 in the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.
Congressman Tonko asked the committee to consider instead a new version of the bill that eliminated the right of scientists to speak to reporters without first getting permission. It would have, instead, allowed scientists to, “respond to media interview requests regarding scientific or technical findings from research conducted by, or research related to that conducted by the individual, while ensuring full compliance with limits on disclosure of classified information.”
The bill would have also allowed the scientists to present opinions beyond the scope of their research findings, if they presented them as personal opinions and not statements on behalf of the agency.
One might argue that provision would have done more harm to free speech than good: it would have helped entrench the idea that people have the right to speak only under special circumstances, like having a science degree. It would also have allowed agencies to require the scientists to report the subject of press interview. Having to report an interview, of course, means being prohibited from ever speaking in confidence with a reporter, routinely depriving the public of much information about what is really happening.
Nevertheless, introduction of the provision could be seen as an important step to raise the idea in Congress that silencing many thousand federal employees in terms of talking to reporters—the effect of the current heavy oversight and permission rules—might not be a good thing. However, the provision apparently offered far too much openness, and it was killed in a mark-up session on October 17 in the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.
Congressman Tonko asked the committee to consider instead a new version of the bill that eliminated the right of scientists to speak to reporters without first getting permission. It would have, instead, allowed scientists to, “respond to media interview requests regarding scientific or technical findings from research conducted by, or research related to that conducted by the individual, while ensuring full compliance with limits on disclosure of classified information.”
The bill would have also allowed the scientists to present opinions beyond the scope of their research findings, if they presented them as personal opinions and not statements on behalf of the agency.
It also would have required agencies to have clear guidelines for how scientists could respond to media requests that would, “not delay or impede without scientific merit the communication of scientific or technical findings to the media.”
Even that version was too much.
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), the ranking member of the committee, offered an amendment to delete those provisions on media requests, citing concern that the legislation would dictate “how federal scientists and agencies handle media requests.” Saying many agencies already have media procedures in place as part of their scientific integrity policies, he said, “Every administration deserves the opportunity to shape policy and message. That's why we hold elections.”
Lucas continued, “The job of scientists is to conduct research and the job of policymakers is to develop policy which is a complicated process that involves weighing many factors including science. Science should also help inform policy not be policy.”
As apparently had been agreed upon before the mark-up session, Rep. Tonko said he accepted the amendment for the sake of the overall bill.
The Committee passed that version the bill 25-6.
Even that version was too much.
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), the ranking member of the committee, offered an amendment to delete those provisions on media requests, citing concern that the legislation would dictate “how federal scientists and agencies handle media requests.” Saying many agencies already have media procedures in place as part of their scientific integrity policies, he said, “Every administration deserves the opportunity to shape policy and message. That's why we hold elections.”
Lucas continued, “The job of scientists is to conduct research and the job of policymakers is to develop policy which is a complicated process that involves weighing many factors including science. Science should also help inform policy not be policy.”
As apparently had been agreed upon before the mark-up session, Rep. Tonko said he accepted the amendment for the sake of the overall bill.
The Committee passed that version the bill 25-6.
The legislation would also require all covered agencies to adopt and enforce a scientific integrity policy that will be approved by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Those policies would do things like prohibit scientists from engaging in misconduct and prohibit suppression or delaying of scientific findings without scientific merit.
It would allow federal scientists to participate in scientific conferences, sit on scientific advisory or governing boards, contribute to the academic peer-review process. Each covered agency would be required to have a scientific integrity officer, an administrative process and dispute resolution process.
It would allow federal scientists to participate in scientific conferences, sit on scientific advisory or governing boards, contribute to the academic peer-review process. Each covered agency would be required to have a scientific integrity officer, an administrative process and dispute resolution process.
Video of the markup session in on the committee website, with the discussion of H.R. 1709 beginning at about minutes 39.
Science Magazine and EOS reported on the markup.
Science Magazine and EOS reported on the markup.
No comments:
Post a Comment