[asa] Inspector General's Report on the Suppression of Climate Science at NASA

http://oig.nasa.gov/investigations/OI_STI_Summary.pdf

After carefully reviewing the relevant facts and circumstances in this
matter, we conclude that officials in the NASA Headquarters Office of Public
Affairs did, in fact, manage the release of information concerning climate
change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, and mischaracterized the
scientific information within the particular media over which that office
had control. Further, on at least one occasion, the Headquarters Office of
Public Affairs denied media access to a NASA scientist, Dr. Hansen, due, in
part, to that office's concern that Dr. Hansen would not limit his
statements to science but would, instead, entertain a policy discussion on
the issue of climate change.
We also conclude that inappropriate political posturing or advantage was the
proximate cause in at least some of these actions. While we did not find
that all Headquarters Office of Public Affairs' adjustments to climate
change news releases were politically motivated, the preponderance of the
evidence does, however, point to politics inextricably interwoven into the
Headquarters Office of Public Affairs' news dissemination process at that
time. Climate change scientists and affected career Public Affairs Officers
believed that, as a result of their proposed media releases being altered,
delayed, or converted to other (lesser) media, their work was in fact
compromised for political advantage—especially when it conflicted with the
Administration's policies or priorities. We uncovered no direct evidence to
substantiate their beliefs, but the circumstantial evidence (to include the
apparent mendacity of one or more senior Public Affairs officials) gives far
more credence to the position of the climate change scientists than it does
to the argument set forth by NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs
(that the changes and delays were due to the heavy volume and poor quality
of the news releases drafted by the scientists). We maintain this opinion
even while recognizing that some of the complaining scientists may have had
their own political or pecuniary agendas as well.

We also note that the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs' *
unilateral* actions in editing or downgrading press releases or denying
media access on a known controversial topic—and doing so without
collaborating with the submitting scientists (as then required by NASA
policy)—minimizes, in our view, the persuasive weight of their arguments as
to volume or quality as the cause. Moreover, their failure to adhere to a
prescribed process—where the goal was transparency and "consensus"—resulted
in complaints, negative media attention, Congressional oversight, and,
ultimately, this investigation.

The actions of the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs also had an
impact on many levels of Agency operations. News releases in the areas of
climate change suffered from inaccuracy, factual insufficiency, and
scientific dilution. Some scientists claimed to have self-censored; others
simply gave up. Worse, trust was lost, at least temporarily, between an
Agency and some of its key employees and perhaps the public it serves.
Congressional relations, at least at the staff level, were also strained.
Finally, these allegations proved to be an unnecessary but significant
distraction to an Agency that was otherwise fully engaged in other areas of
science, exploration, aeronautics, and space operations, each with its own
breathless operational pace, in which safety was paramount. Certainly, all
those actions and effects were inconsistent with the purpose and intent of
the Space Act and other NASA regulations requiring the widest practicable
and appropriate dissemination of information concerning NASA's activities
and research, especially on a topic that has worldwide scientific interest.
In sum, when it pertains to dissemination of the Nation's hard science, *
none* of this course of conduct was in the public's best interest.
Furthermore, to the extent that these allegations transpired for more than 1
year, the Agency as a whole (particularly the Science Mission Directorate
and the Office of Public Affairs) bears responsibility for not appropriately
elevating these matters to senior management for resolution.

Also, the speed with which NASA changed its policies is evidence of the
importance the Agency attributed to the real or perceived political
interference problems within the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs and
climate change science communities. Once the conflict between the scientists
and the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs became a focus of the
leadership within the Office of the Administrator, aggressive steps were
taken to study the problem and take corrective action. The revised policies
clearly improved NASA's processes pertaining to their public dissemination
of science and science-related information; and their yet-to-be-tested
dispute resolution mechanism between the science and Public Affairs
communities seems to be a significant step in transparency and open
communications. So far, the new policies have been well received by the
various constituencies affected, and we have yet to learn of a complaint
since their implementation. [emphasis in the original]

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jun 12 17:39:34 2008