White House Clamps Down On USGS Publishing 417
An anonymous reader writes "The White House has begun implementing a new policy toward the U.S. Geological Survey, in which all scientific papers and other public documents by USGS scientists must be screened for content. The USGS communications office must now be 'alerted about information products containing high-visibility topics or topics of a policy-sensitive nature.' Subjects fitting this description might include global warming, or research on the effects of oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve."
Bush is not the first to do it (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in Brasil we have a joke about Bush and Lula that goes along the line that both of them don't know English (well, Lula also is not very good with portuguese, our official language). It seems to me, that being authoritarian is another common trace between the presidents of the US and Brasil.
Re:Riiight (Score:3, Interesting)
It might be nice to know beforehand so you can call your wife and tell her your going to be late for dinner because somebody at USG just published something and the press is going crazy over it!
Re:I can't wait, (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It may be.... (Score:3, Interesting)
At least in the SSSR you had some kind of social justice...
chocolate (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish they would start with the chocolate. Considering the size of the average american waist, rationing chocolate would be an improvement, probably save billions in health-care costs.
Ah but dark chocolate is good for the heart [forbes.com]. It also contains antioxidants which may help fight cancer. you've gotta love chocolate.
FalconThe dilemma of government research (Score:5, Interesting)
Having works reviewed by my agency (NASA) is always interesting. In academia, there is usually very little interference from the parent university (one of the basic tenets of tenure). The researchers opinion is never considered that of the university proper.
It doesn't work that way in government, the distinction between the researcher and the parent agency doesn't exist (although if it did we would probably get better research). A paper put out by a government lab is sometimes construed as government policy, with the ensuing political or legal fallout.
The last thing any senior administrator wants to deal with is a call from legislative affairs complaining about the conclusion of what was seemingly an obscure paper, or the lawyers from a company that was badmouthed in an environmental paper. I don't think these rules are active efforts to stifle information, it's simply folks trying to keep their agencies below the political radar (or by extension, department managers trying to keep their name from being attached to some problem that is showing up at agency headquarters). It's a shame really, but it's the way the world works.
Government employees are in an odd gray area - if you worked for a private company, you most definitely would not have a "right" to expressing your opinion in a company paper - they are paying you, and would fire you. Government employees have a bit more freedom, and their management struggles to define what opinions do and do not belong in government works.
Re:Another right bites the dust (Score:5, Interesting)
2) When they do vote it is often meaningless due to gerrymandered districts. If you're a Brit the analogy would be the 'rotten burroughs' of the 18th and 19th century in Britian.
3) When congress does pass laws against a president's wishes he simply issues a signing statement saying he will not enforce them. This is blatent nonfeasence, something that should get the pres. removed from office. But niether the courts or the congress have the backbone to challenge him on it.
4) The courts are being packed with activist judges who toe the right wing agenda. Judge Alito on the Supreme Court for example is a huge suppporter of the concept of the 'unitary executive'. Meaning the president gets to do whatever the president pleases.
All this points to a drift toward right wing authoritarian rule. The president as emporer or god-king. Lately I read some posts on the net about the only solution to this being to amend the constitution to dissolve the executive branch, go toward a bi-cameral parlimentary system. I am starting to agree with that POV.
Re:Another right bites the dust (Score:3, Interesting)
First, as the head of the Executive Branch of the government, the President has the power and the right to oversee the functioning of all departments of government. In a sense the President is the Chief Executive Officer of the United States Government. So there are no rights being trampled on here--no free speech implications--any more than if the CEO of your company asked for review of all published papers. Nothing is preventing the researchers at the USGS from taking jobs at a variety of other institutions, such as Caltech, which is doing similar work in the field.
Second, if you've interpreted the constant bitching about the Bush Administration as being "agreeable", I'd hate to think what you think is not "agreeable." I strongly suspect many foreigners looking into the United States thinks we are the most repressed, most totalitarian "democracy" in the world because everytime our government twitches a finger or some official somewhere says something about the 1st, 2nd or 14th amendments to our constitutions (guaranteeing fundamental rights that are only granted in most European countries by law rather than by constitutional restriction--law which can be as easily repealed as it was passed) that rubs someone the wrong way, we bitch, LOUDLY, and publically. How this constant criticism, bitching, and discourse is interpreted as our government failing--rather than that of a healthy democracy engaged in healthy self-criticism, is beyond me.
Third, I'm always amazed at foreigners who do look into this constant din of self-criticism and say "boy, you Americans are really fracked up"--who fail to engage in the same degree of healthy self-criticism in their own countries. Where are the protesters in France when the freedom to present illegal drugs in a positive light (a basic freedom of speech) was taken away and anyone who speaks about using illegal drugs in a positive way can be imprisoned for 5 years and fined up to 76,000 euros? Where were the protesters in Ireland complaining about their notion of freedom of speech, which prohibits using speech to upset the public order or the authority of the State? (Well, nevermind that one--anyone protesting that law would be upsetting the public order and questioning the authority of the State and thus subject to prison time.) source [wikipedia.org]
Where are the protesters in the United Kingdom protesting either for--or against--Tony Martin? [wikipedia.org] Or the protesters complaining or demanding that the right of self defense in England needs to be preserved? The guy is cause celebrity for self defense in the United States, where self defense is considered a fundamental human right rather than an "valid legal justification" to commit murder. (And if you don't know the difference between the two, then you have no business bitching about "civil liberties" or "rights.")
I'm not saying that these should be protested in their respective countries. What I'm saying is that these things would have been protested in the United States. (If you're an American, can you imagine the uproar if anyone even considered passing a law making it illegal to portray the use of illegal drugs in a positive light?) And while in their own respective countries they apparently were met with indifference, here in the United States they would have been strongly protested--and probably used by the citizens of France, the United Kingdom or Ireland as further evidence of American "agreeability."
Re:Another right bites the dust (Score:3, Interesting)
We aren't told the basic truths such as the REAL power of the jury which is to determine if a law itself is bad and get rid of it.
All too true. And the thing is is judges and prosecutors screen juries to get rid of those who believe in Jury Nullification [greenmac.com].
FalconRe:I am outraged! (Score:1, Interesting)
Now, however, they will wash their hands of everything the Repubs have done, and vote Republican in 2 years time, because they think that the Democrats should be able to magically turn everything around and fix it all in an 18 month period.
The vast majority of Americans are apathetic and don't care. The ones that vote tend to vote based on selfish and ignorant principles. Very few bother to educate themselves on the issues.
America is still fucked. This is just par for the course.
Re:Another right bites the dust (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bush is not the first to do it (Score:2, Interesting)
The councils responce to this wasn't to look at how furniture could be recycled, but to buy covers for the skips so people couldn't see what was in them.
Re:I can't wait, (Score:4, Interesting)
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law [...] shall not be questioned."
Bush repeatedly referred to the US Treasury Bonds in which Social Security is invested as IOUs of questionable value back when he was trying to dismantle Social Security. One might argue that this section of the 14th Amendment, which largely deals with Civil War issues, is probably one that needs a little re-interpretation. But presumably Republicans would be against such "activist" meddling.
Re:Dams Bridges Power Lines (Score:3, Interesting)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=212172&ci
> Censoring science for political reasons is nothing short of censorship. I'd love to see a constitutional amendment that explicitly dictates that all science with data can not be censored by any act of government. It apparently isn't covered in the first amendment, since it's not universally considered expression. Why not? Would anyone in sound mind vote for a politician who disagrees with an amendment protecting truth?
>
> I respect any scientist who continues to fight for science, research and truth. IMHO those are core values of America. We wouldn't be the country we were if it wasn't for science, research and truth. From Ben Franklyn, Thomas Edison, and Ely Whitney among many, our country was shaped by science. If it wasn't for these guys, we would have never hit the information age, or even the industrial age.
Or do these American scientists appear to be insane whackjobs to you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6178213
> US SCIENTISTS REJECT INTERFERENCE
> By Jonathan Amos
> Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
>
> There have been claims of political interference on climate issues
Some 10,000 US researchers have signed a statement protesting about political interference in the scientific process.
>
> The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy.
>
> According to the American Union of Concerned Scientists, data is being misrepresented for political reasons.
>
> Campaigners say that in recent years the White House has been able to censor the work of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration because a Republican congress has been loath to stand up for scientific integrity.
BTW, toddhisattva, a conspiracy theory ceases to be just a theory once the conspiracy is exposed and documented -- and the Dubya Bush administration has been the most secretive, conspiratorial presidency in US history:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=212172&ci
> The Bush administration's secrecy mania is about to run into Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). He's the ranking minority member of the House Government Reform Committee. On January 20th, he will become chairman. And he will then have subpoena power over the Executive Branch.
>
> This is the congressman who published "Bush Administration's 237 Misleading Statements on Iraq". He is totally fed up with the lying and secrecy. Expect to see many officials of the Bush administration being questioned by Waxman's commiteee on TV. Under penalty of perjury.
>
> Remember when all the cigarette company CEOs had to testify under oath about what they knew and when they knew it about addiction and hazards? That was Waxman.
They say that Dubya's problem is that he's literally living in his own little world. Apparently so are you.
Re:I'm surprised so many people defend the USGS... (Score:3, Interesting)
There is strong suspicion that it is common that congressional members (under "suggestions" from people lobbying congress) direct research in government labs in order to provide fodder for their political arguments by convincing scientist of compatible political pursuation to initiate specific directly research with an agenda which then gets published under a US Govt. banner. Realizing that until recently these publication could barely qualify as journals and weren't even subject to indpendent external peer review you might see how this could be a problem.
Someone needs to continue try and clean up the USGS work product to filter out the political crap. Perhaps this is a case of bush can't do it (politically) since he's dirty already, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a worthy goal? You seem to think it's unacheivable anyhow, so why try, is that your argument? Once the research is published it's too late, but perhaps bush is going too far by wanting advanced notice, but sadly I doubt there is going to be any actual intelligent discussion about this issue.
For example, I'm sure that Clinton and Gore would have been interested in getting some advanced notice of the Yucca Mountain research before it got published in the USGS report and lapped up by the media contrary to the clinton-gore stated public policy. If I remember correclty, it all surfaced during the run-up to the 2K election and even bush2 denounced the biased YM research when it came out. Perhaps this is just something we have to live with (can't get the corruption out of this part of the civil service), but I wouldn't call it crap...
In answer to your other question, it doesn't matter if you hate the president or not (I don't care). I think it's actually the bush bashers that distract from this problem and hence my post that expresses surprize that people are coming to defense of this USGS as a proxy for "scientist free speech being impared", just as an opportunistic way to bush bash.
I guess I can't even denigrate the bushbasher when they seem to be jumping on the wrong issue. I suppose bushbashers are the "untouchables" on slashdot these days... Sigh... I guess I shouldn't mention that I use "vi" and "bsd"...