Read again, folks. I think we all agree that the substantive matter is a scientists right to publicly voice his/her own opinion on the science they are engaged in, without intereference so long as the scientist makes it clear the opinion is personal. Now read carefully the following two paragraphs: SECTION 1 1. NON-OFFICIAL PUBLIC COh~LMUlVICATIONS. .O1 Non-Official Communication of Interest. a. Definition. "Non-Official Communication of Interest" means any Public Communication that takes place and is prepared non-officially (i.e., it does not meet any of the criteria of Section 6.03a.1-4) and is a matter of official interest to the Department because it relates to Department programs, policies, or operations. b. Advance Notice and Review of Materials. An employee shall provide to the head of the operating unit or Secretarial office, or their designee(s), timely advance notice of the occurrence and subject matter of a Non-Official Communication of Interest. With regard to an oral communication, such notice is not required if the communication is not initiated by the employee and if there is no time to give advance notice, although in such cases notice shall be given as soon as possible after the communication. All written and audiovisual materials that are, or are prepared in connection with, a Non-Official Communication of Interest must be submitted before the communication occurs to the head of the operating unit or Secretarial office, or their designee(s), for a review to be concluded as soon as is reasonably practicable (but, under no circumstances whatsoever, shall the period of review exceed fourteen days). The purpose of this review is to protect and promote the efficient operation of the Department by identifying communications that will impact the Department's operations because they: 1. Contain classified or otherwise restricted material; 2. Violate applicable ethcs regulations and statutes; or 3. Improperly attribute the personal views of the employee to the Department or that could reasonably be perceived by the public as doing so. Material submitted for review must be marked "Non-Official Communication of Interest." 4.02 In recognition of the fact that, in some circumstances, the disclosure of certain information would be inappropriate andlor illegal (e.g., inconsistent with applicable ethics regulations and statutes), this Order does not authorize disclosure of information that is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act or otherwise restricted by statute, regulation, Executive Order, or other Executive Branch, Department, or operating unit policy. Additionally, this Order does not authorize activities inconsistent with the requirements of Statistical Policy Directive No. 3, Compilation, Release, and Evaluation of Principal Federal Economic Indicators (September 24, 1985). Beauracratese deconstructed: All public communications must go through the political commisar FIRST, and those persons may gag the scientists if the material is deemed 'inappropriate'.
There's a legitimate appeals process and it's reasonable for the employer (gov't or not) to know how and where the information being gathered on the job is being used and distributed. I can see both sides here. If some gov't scientist was going out making ridiculous claims counter to scientific evidence or something the gov't needs to be aware so they can protect themselves from those who'd say "Gov't scientists claim that the Earth is flat" or some other such ridiculous claim. IOW, this seems to me to be more or less something to allow some preemptive damage control and not a gag order. I'm certain that most of these scientists would just make their statements and deal with the consequences after the fact if they felt strongly enough and they were told they could not talk about them.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 9 2007, 11:40 AM) [snapback]420278[/snapback]</div> The appeals process is a sham, since the decision is adjucated by a commisar in the commerce department. Note, that the policy does not say: give us a heads up before you talk (though this is also draconian); it says wait for our approval before talking, because the commissar has to decide if the communication is 'appropriate'. Ridiculous claims -- like that kook Hansen, e.g. ? Consider the overall intent, Evan: personal communications by scientists to the public are restricted unless a commissar approves them. As for your confidence that the 'truth will emerge', you are being naive. These are people with familys to support. Allowing gag orders to stand that force scientists to risk losing their jobs if it really matters to them to talk is insane.
I'm far from naive, but I am realistic. There should be and will be some restrictions. Notice that there are also any number of loopholes which allow the scientists to speak without prior approval as well. If you wanna find monsters hiding under your bed then every shadow on the wall will be all the proof you need that they're there. Almost everyone working for any company anywhere has something in their contract allowing the employer some control or escape mechanism if the employee should overstep their bounds. I'm all on your bandwagon as soon as one of these scientists comes out saying they were gagged from telling the truth about GW or whatever else they want to share, but it's clear to me in my reading of this (and remember, I came to it believing it was a gag order) that this is not a gag order or intended to prevent the fair and open sharing of information by the gov't scientists. YMMV
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 9 2007, 10:55 AM) [snapback]420290[/snapback]</div> Also, this administration has a pretty thorough history of muzziling its scientist with non-scientists, be it Hansen or others like the one recently reported below: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/p...G-Report_JM.pdf
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 9 2007, 08:59 AM) [snapback]420332[/snapback]</div> I think you've hit the nail on the head; you have to wait until the appeals process is abused to get excited about this. PEER is an advocacy group, and just like all of them, they tend to over-state their case (or, "lie", in some cases). The alternative to a policy like this is to let any government scientist stand up and pontificate about his favorite passion. While this thread was framed with the current Administration and the GW issue in mind, the policy does not apply to any single issue. It protects the public just as much from someone with his own conclusions regarding climate change as it does someone who wants to stand up and say America is a Christian Nation and that "irreducible complexity" means evolution is false. The Shop Stewards at PEER may object, but let's wait and see if any scientist in the employ of the Federal Government feels restricted by this. Remember, the past controversy with PEER had Grand Canyon Park Rangers coming out and saying they had never felt pressured to "hide" the age of the canyon.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 9 2007, 11:54 PM) [snapback]420604[/snapback]</div> The alternative is the pre-bush era. How awful. Federal scientists spouting nonsense every other day. NOT
