Re: USGS scientists worry about being muzzled

In article <p57gh.1171$G46.681@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
George <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
In article <1166075226.502387.304930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Stuart" <bigdakine@xxxxxxx> wrote:

George wrote:

By John Heilprin
Updated: 6:02 p.m. ET Dec 13, 2006


From now on, USGS supervisors will demand to see the comments of
peer reviewers' as well any exchanges between the scientists who are
seeking to publish their findings and the reviewers.

Lotsa Luck with that.

I pity any bureaucrat trying to pull that crap on me.


From the article:

"This is not about stifling or suppressing our science, or politicizing
our science in any way," Barbara Wainman, the agency's director of
communications, said Wednesday. "I don't have approval authority. What
it was designed to do is to improve our product flow."

Product flow? What the hell is this, and ad agency?

Yes. What did you think? That the White House was concerned about
the highest quality science reaching the public as rapidly and accurately
as possible?

The agency's director, Mark Myers, and its communications office also
must be told -- prior to any submission for publication -- "of findings
or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government
policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that
proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are

In other words, if you're a scientist and you discover something that
will stick in George's craw, you have to tell his buddies about it first
so they can spin it properly when you do publish it.

And to prevent those scientists who come up with findings the
administration doesn't like from talking to the media. (What? You
thought again that they were trying to ensure best science
communication in some sense scientists might agree with?
Best science = science that agrees with the administration's
conclusions. They're going for 'best science', but under their
definition of best.)

And since it's a regulation, anyone who ignores it can be fired.

It's going to take a while to clean up that mess: Bureaucrats empowered
to decide what scientists and can't publish without prior notification
aren't going to like giving up that work.

Solution? All the government scientists can sit down and refuse to work
until the Republicans end this charade. That would pretty much shut down
every major facility in the nation. I'd like to see them try to outsource

Come again? Your solution to an administration that doesn't want
scientists to publish or talk to the public about their science is
for the scientists to not publish or talk to the public? You'll
have to explain that tactic.

As to the outsourcing of science, that's already under way. As
the US cripples its science education, there's not much alternative

Robert Grumbine Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences