Congressman Nick J. Rahall (Democrat-WV) is planning “a sweeping review on whether politics is infiltrating decisions governing regulatory policies of endangered species”¹. This stems from a recent report from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of the Interior². The investigatory report contends that Ms. Julie MacDonald, the deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, and a Bush appointee, released internal documents and findings to industry lobbyists, in violation of federal rules. Beyond the report, numerous top agency officials have accused the secretary of manipulating scientific findings for the benefit of industry or personal interests. In one case, Ms. MacDonald, an engineer by training, insisted on reducing the protected nesting range of the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher from 2.1 to 1.8 miles, contrary to the scientific reports from field. Ostensibly, this change was to prevent the extension of the flycatcher’s designated protected habitat into a family ranch in California. This and similar incidents have led to a considerable number of questionable policy recommendations that are inevitably challenged by environmentalists, flooding the court system. A courtroom victory requires that much, if not all, of the costly and time-consuming scientific studies and regulatory work be repeated, essentially grinding an already overburdened regulatory bureaucracy to a near halt.

Keep an eye out for the Scientific Communications Act of 2007 (HR-1453). Congresswoman Doris O. Matsui (D-CA) introduced the bill to provide communications skills training for graduate students in the sciences (via NSF funding). In a press release, Rep. Matsui stated that the “communications training provided through this legislation will better equip our scientists to articulate their expertise to help inform the American people and the decision making process”³. The bill may not escape the House Science and Technology committee, but it is encouraging that some in Congress recognize the need for improved communication between scientists and the public who funds their work.

On March 19, the committee on Oversight and Government Reform convened to examine the “evidence and allegations of political interference with the work of government climate change scientists under the current administration”⁴. It has been established that this administration has distorted scientific results, especially climate-related science, by selectively emphasizing scientific uncertainties and downplaying mainstream scientific conclusions⁵. This latest hearing detailed one of the most glaring examples—the muzzling of NASA’s leading climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen. In sworn testimony, Mr. George Deutsch, former NASA public affairs officer, referred to e-mail messages in which he and senior officials balked at National Public Radio’s On Point interview request with Dr. Hansen. Instead, the Office of Public Affairs offered other, less vociferous, scientists more in line with the agency’s “message.” Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) pointed out that “this is the very definition of political interference with the communication of scientific information.” Following this incident, NASA changed its media policy on March 30, 2006⁶. It remains to be seen whether the other government agencies will follow suit.

References:

Related Articles:

• Policy Roundup