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

Thank you for posting this. The religion/science interface is a tough
one. The politics/science interface is tougher. The religion/politics
interface is toughest of all.

Burgy

On 6/12/08, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 Fri Jun 13 10:26:15 2008