"'Don't discuss polar bears": Bush Admin.'s Memo to Scientists

Reading the article it was basically a memo asking government employees not to comment on issues without making sure that they are presenting the government's official position. That seems pretty reasonable to me - if you represent an organization it is expected that you present the organizations position on an issue.

I work for a Canadian bank - there have been a lot of news articles lately complaining about the ABM fees that the Canadian banks charge. I may personally agree that the ABM fees are too high but if I were to go and give an interview with the news media and publically critisize my company's policies then I would fully expect to be fired.

 

The president has no place quieting scientists, whether they are in his employ or not. In the government, dissenting opinions should always be heard.

 

Wow, you certainly have a different view about scientists than I do. It would never even occur to me to think that a scientist would be neutral. I would always expect a scientist to present whatever finding he/she could that were to the benefit of his/her employer or patrons.

 

Good point: government members are de jure civil servants. In fact, the public should expect that it be told the truth. This is one of the fundamental building blocks of a democratic system.

 

Scientists should be scientists first and employees second. All government employees from the President on down work for the people and are accountable to the people.

 

Tal,
they believe global warming is a hoax. That's a right wing article of faith. That is a result of intense and highly successful lobbying by energy companies. Very much in line with the Bush administration's approach on such things in general, the memo is an approach to enforce 'message consistency'. Usually they also hand out talking points which have to be adopted in verbatim.

Here's one example of such talking points, from a conservative 'free market think tank', The National Center for Public Policy Research

Such institutions are there to provide a business friendly 'other side of the story', which is if course nonsense. They talk, but do not research. They are merely playing devils advocate. Practically the highly politicised environment in the US means that a scientist, even if he has ample scientific indications of global warming and is researching in this field and an expert, must not contradict the administration, or else, he is implicitly threatened with disciplinary action if he doesn't fall in line with their view. If he contradicts the adminstration line 'no global warning', it will be seen as a subversion of presidential policy and a political attack. That means clearly, that at a certain point there will be sanctions.

For a scientist it must be nightmarish to have this pagan loonies in the administration simply denying the global scientific consensus that's based on data gathered by thousands of scientists over a couple of decades, forcing him to shut up.

Just exchange global warming, which to deny I think is utter lunacy, with earthquakes or volcanoes, and you see how insane the situation is. A scientists warns of an imminent earthquake or erupting volcano and is told by the mayor that he doesn't believe in earthquakes, or volcanoes. You know the scene from countless cheap disaster movies. Bush is the mayor in 'The White Shark' who sais: 'Sharks? What sharks?'

Message consistency in a bank is something else, it's for the benefit of the bank and the shareholders. Research of global and national natural risks is for the greater good, and it concerns everyone. That's what government paid for research is there for. You cannot apply the standards of a public corporation on civil service. However, in the Bush administration that's IMO very much the case. That is what Gonzales does all the time. He does not offer what he should do - a candid and impartial analysis, even where that candid and impartial analysis would constrain the administration's pursuit of policy goals. Instead, he is making a case according to the wishes of his clients, the president and vice president. It's like they own the place.

 

JSBB is right.

There seem to be some confusion between a government scientist, industrial scientist and academic scientist. Nearly every discription above is focused on the academic scientist. However, there are far more scientists working for the government or in industry than in academics.

I am a industrial scientist -- I can only support our products and spout the company line. Of course, I can offer unpartial opinions at the expence of not being employed anymore.

I was also a scientist with the Naval Research Labs while still in the Navy. Any public disagreement with government policy would have been punishable under the uniform code of military justice.

As a government or industrial scientist, you are expected to remain neutral in your research -- exploring all possibilities without bias. I have never been expected to have the exact same opinions as my co-workers and employers. But every scientist is expected to keep his or her mouth shut when personal opinions are in conflict with an employer's position.

Those scientists are being paid by the US government. It is perfectly reasonable for those individuals to keep their comments within the policies of the administration. The scientist can protest and vacate his or her position if the issue is that important to them.

Academic scientists have far more leeway to discuss whatever they wish in any way they want to. There are some restrictions. Most academia requires grants -- the old saying of biting the hand the feeds you applies. Speaking out against any organization that is funding research will generally result in having that grant vacated.

 

And the truth and public trust be damned!

That's a load. They work for the American people, their real employers and the people who pay their salaries.

 

I feel the need to chime in. Ragusa mentioned that conservatives do not believe in global warming. That isn't necessarily true. What we don't believe is that it is a man made problem. Most of us believe that the temperature of the planet is dependent on that big ball of fire in the sky. It is the simpleist and most obvious answer. Recently, I've even seen articles that imply that Mars is warming up. I know somehow Bush and the United States will be blamed for that also, but I swear it isn't our fault.

 

Denying that global warming is affected by man is folly and is slowly and surely falling to the same bucket as denying the holocaust and denying evolution. In all these cases there are those who just refuse to believe the mountain of evidence gathered against them and instead choose the comfortable way of ignorance.

In any case I think this largely depends on what kind of scientists we are talking about. If these are working under universities and using government money through these then the adminstration dictating what they can and can't say is simply crushing the freedom of speech. The universities should be free to do research and allocate their money with minimum involvement from the political leadership. If we are talking about different research groups assigned directly by the adminstration then I think it's obvious for the adminstration to involve their political agenda, which is unfortunate but unavoidable. If the research results turn inaccurate or forged then I'm sure the university studies in the same subject will be more than eager to point it out.

 

Interesting, I always learn something on this board. I'm not at all happy about what I just learned. You cannot trust scientist. They are not impartial but subject to the whims of the government, the grant givers or where ever the money comes from. Gee, I'm surprised we ever got told that smoking is bad for us. Hey, maybe it isn't. Well, this takes care of all the scientific arguments about things.



I hope you realize there is a lot of sarcasm in this post.

 

*blinks* No wonder New Zealand keeps producing all these wonderful little gizmos and gadgets, there appears to be no such government legislation telling scientists they must conform or lose their job.

I can't believe a country would hamstring itself so. You might as well just give scientists flint and tinder now and tell them to invent fire just so we're ready when we fall back to the stone age.

 

By all means Chandos -- speak out against the school board you work for. Surely there are policies that do not put the children first -- point it out!!! What? You'd lose your job? What about the truth? What about the parents that trust you to ensure their children have every opportunity? It is no different for a scientist.

I am required to sign a confidentiality agreement and a non-disclosure agreement every year. It is a part of the terms my employment. I cannot disclose information the company does not want disclosed -- to do so invites both termination and grounds for the company to sue me. That is just a fact of life for scientists.

And Nakia... Jeffery Wigand was turned into an pariah. He was harassed by the tobacco industry and local police. He was unable to find employment as a researcher (a direct result of breaking confidentiality agreements in the science industry).

Intregrity is an important part of being a scientist -- but that also includes keeping your word to your employer. As I said before, if you disagree with something you can speak out -- but there is a price. A price that men like Jeffery Wigand know (and, by the way, I have a great deal of respect for Dr Wigand).

It would be interesting to see Aldeth's opinion on this.

 

T2Bruno, I feel sorry for the scientists in this country. I don't blame someone for wanting to get and keep a good paying job. The thing is scientists are looked up to come up with things that we can trust. They are assumed to be, on the whole, impartial researchers seeking the truth. It is very disillusioning to me to find that I can trust what is put forward as science in this country. The government puts guidelines on Corporations. They are required to live up to certain standards. Sure there are cracks and I stopped trusting the FDA when it permitted a medicine that caused me serious problems to become and over-the-counter medication but it does maintain some minimal purpose.

I also have a great deal of respect for Dr. Wigand.

 

We're not talking about opinions here though - we're talking about objective reality as reached through scientific consensus. Stopping people from talking about the problem isn't going to make it any less real.

Frankly I think that this has reached the point of being the equivalent of denying evolution. That's pretty sad...