SCISSION provides progressive news and analysis from the breaking point of Capital. SCISSION represents an autonomist Marxist viewpoint. The struggle against white skin privilege and white supremacy is key. --- "You cannot carry out fundamental change without a certain amount of madness. In this case, it comes from nonconformity, the courage to turn your back on the old formulas, the courage to invent the future.” FIGHT WHITE SUPREMACY, SAVE THE EARTH
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
BUSH SAYS, "WORLD IT FLAT"...SO IT MUST BE
With the earth being put in the oven, scientists at the EPA are not allowed to talk about it. This has just about got to be the first administration in US history that looks at science as nothing more than a public relations discipline. Everyone is going to pay for the Bushies disregard of objective facts. Some already have.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
For Immediate Release: Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337
EPA CONTINUES TO SCREEN ALL INTERVIEWS WITH SCIENTISTS
EPA Will Not Match “Open Science” Policies Adopted at NASA and NOAA
Washington, DC —Despite growing concerns about political interference with science, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is requiring prior headquarters approval for all communications by its scientists with the media, according to an agency email released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). EPA’s stance of screening all press interviews is at variance with recent pronouncements of scientific openness by two of its sister agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
In a February 9, 2006 email to all staff, Ann Brown the News Director for the agency’s science arm, the Office of Research and Development (ORD), admonished –
“We are asked to remind all employees that EPA's standard media procedure is to refer all media queries regarding ORD to Ann Brown, ORD News Director, prior to agreeing to or conducting any interviews…Support for this policy also will allow reasonable time for appropriate management response.”
By contrast, less than a week earlier on February 4, 2006, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin sent an all-employee email in which he committed the agency to “open scientific and technical inquiry and dialogue with the public.” Griffin stated, “It is not the job of public affairs officers to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff.”
On February 10, 2006, NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher told The Washington Post that “I encourage scientists to conduct peer-reviewed research and provide the honest results of those findings,” adding that “My policy…is to have a free and open organization.”
“Why are scientists at NASA free to answer questions about global warming while their colleagues at EPA are not?” asked PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Science does not come in Republican or Democratic flavors; scientists should be able to discuss findings without having to check whether facts comport with management policy.”
Scientists often fall outside the coverage of whistleblower protection laws and thus, scientists who violate agency gag rules may be punished for insubordination. Corrective legislation (HR 839 by Representative Waxman and S 1358 by Senator Richard Durbin) that would grant scientists the right to openly discuss their findings is pending before both houses of Congress.
Ironically, at the same time that it is restricting media contacts with scientists, EPA itself is engaged in an aggressive public relations effort called “Science for You” that promotes the importance of the scientific research being conducted at the agency.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment