Comments from the Area of the Closing Gates

These are things I have heard public information officers from federal science agencies say in the last year or so.

Silencing Dissidents

---A PIO said a reporter had asked for an interview with a particular person in the agency, but the agency probably would not allow it. One reason was that the source person might want to make a case for the worth of his particular program in the agency, for budget purposes.

Comment: Dear American public: Don’t ever, ever allow public officials to keep disgruntled staff opinions away from you. Those miffed folks have often been invaluable in telling us what is happening to us.

Blocking the “Wrong” Expert

---Another PIO said in a public meeting that in media interviews he allows the scientists to talk about science and the policy experts to talk about policy, but he doesn’t allow either to talk about the other area.

Comment: Can any of us imagine how much is silenced forever by people in power deciding who can speak about what? People with eyes and ears and a brain can’t tell us anything?

Congress shall make no law….

---Also, in a public meeting, a PIO said that in “media training” of agency experts she told them that yes, they have First Amendment rights, but they can still get in trouble within the agency for saying something.

Comment: When did agencies decide the public wanted them to ignore the First Amendment? How is it anything but irresponsible for the press and the public to trust a few people in an agency who use their power silence everyone else?

A Bill Actually Speaks Out Against the Censorship

New legislation introduced in both the House and the Senate could be important to the fight against federal agencies’ policies that prohibit employees and journalists from communicating with each other without notifying the authorities.

The Scientific Integrity Act (S. 775), aimed at ensuring that scientists and scientific research is not stifled, was introduced by Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Representative Paul Tonko (D-NY).

Among other things the legislation says, “covered individuals” in federal agencies “may respond to media interview requests regarding their scientific or technical findings from research conducted by the individual without prior approval….”

The mere introduction of the bill may be important to efforts against the censorship policies because it is a statement against mandated oversight by the authorities for contacts with journalists. It comes in an environment where heavy prohibitions against speaking without permission and oversight are the norm.

In the legislation “covered individuals” are employees or contractors who are engaged in, supervise or manage scientific activities; analyze or publicly communicate about those activities; or use the information in making policy, management or regulatory decisions.

The bill also says, however, that the agency may require the individual to report the subject of the interview.

Importantly, the bill also says those covered individuals may talk about personal opinions, including on matters of policy, only if they indicate they are presenting personal opinions.

The legislation is supported by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

NASW Standards Call for Journalists to Have Direct Access to People in Federal Agencies

The National Association of Science Writers has released its Information Access Standards “to guide interactions between journalists and PIOs and sources at federal science agencies.”

Notably the standards say, “Journalists should have direct, unrestricted access to sources in the federal government.”

They also state, “PIOs and federal agencies should encourage direct and unfettered communication between journalists and scientists.”

The standards emerged from a one and half day summit held last October, participated in by both science journalists and PIOs. That was followed by a multi-step review and NASW board approval.

The process was guided in great part by Gabriel Popkin, a science journalist in the Washington, D.C., area and until recently head of the NASW. Popkin has said that there needs to be a push going forward to publicize and use the standards and to formally collect information on what is happening with access.

The standards make NASW one of the first journalists’ groups to, in essence, call for an end to the forced clearance through authorities of all contacts between journalists and employees.

In 2017 the Society of Professional Journalists called those policies censorship and a grave threat to public welfare.

(Full disclosure: I was involved in drafting both statements.)

The NASW standards further state, “Federal agencies should clearly inform scientists and other employees that they have a right to express their personal opinions, including to the media, without fear of retribution or punishment.”

That also is groundbreaking because many agencies have long said the reason people can’t speak, or that the agency must tell reporters who to talk to, is that source persons’ statements might not reflect the “coordinated” agency statement.