Here is an article from the New York Times. Arun ----- June 9, 2006
Inconsistent Information Policies Jeopardize Research, Panel Says By ANDREW C. REVKIN
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/09/science/09research.html
WASHINGTON, June 8 - The quality and credibility of government research are being jeopardized by inconsistent policies for communicating scientific findings to the public, says an independent group of scientists that advises Congress and the White House.
The group, the National Science Board, examined the issue at the request of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. Mr. McCain sought the review in February after Civil Service workers and scientists at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and other agencies complained publicly that political appointees had interfered with efforts to discuss global warming and other controversial issues.
The board canvassed an array of agencies like the space agency and the National Institutes of Health and found a lack of clear, consistent guidance to scientists and press offices on releasing information to the public and the news media.
In recent months, the board found, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have taken "steps in the right direction." But it said other agencies continued to lack consistent standards.
Where policies exist, the board said, they are often focused more on restricting scientists' ability to discuss their findings than on guaranteeing a free flow of information.
The board's review, written as a letter to Mr. McCain, was posted last month on the Web site of the National Science Foundation and has been noted by several Web publications and trade journals focused on science policy.
Asked to comment on the report, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy replied in an e-mail message that the office had "discussed the issue of communications policy with agency chief scientists shortly after the NASA incidents which are cited in the senator's letter, and we continue to monitor agency practices."
"We think the NASA response was excellent," the spokesman, Benjamin Fallon, wrote, "and have distributed it to the agencies as an example of a best practice and have not seen evidence that the situation requires the development of a mandatory one-size-fits-all policy."
The scientific board acknowledged that agencies were entitled to keep track of what their scientists were saying. But it recommended that the White House science office develop a common set of principles encouraging open communication of science and discouraging "the intentional or unintentional suppression or distortion of research findings."
The report said that at most agencies policies were out of date, unclear or handled in different ways by different field offices. Clear guidelines, it added, could reduce confusion.
The lack of uniformity appears to cause other problems, said Warren M. Washington, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who is the chairman of the science board and the lead author of the report.
"The constant turnover of upper-level staff meant the policies were constantly changing depending on who is boss or who the midlevel supervisor was," Mr. Washington said in an interview.
Mr. McCain, a senior member of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, inserted an amendment into a bill last month reflecting the science board's findings. The amendment calls for the White House science office to create a "set of principles" encouraging the "open exchange of data and results of research by federal agency scientists."
The bill has not been sent to the Senate floor for a vote.
copyright 2006 The New York Times