Economic Stimulus Includes Whistleblowing Protections for Scientists

What wonderful news! Thanks for sharing.

Sounds like a good idea.

Keep in mind it only passed in the House version of the stimulus package. I don't know if it's in the Senate version, or if it will survive to be in the final bill that goes to Obama.

That is really overdue. That was one of the most annoying things that Bush did, when he hired that oil industry lobbyist in the White House to re-write the climate reports from James Hansen and others. when I read the news articles on that, I could really not believe my eyes.
I will admit that we could get a handful of federal scientists who could end up doing bad science and getting it published. But the way science works is that it is subjected to the judgement and re-testing of other scientists. We need to trust that process, rather than permitting the executive branch to muzzle any science that they find inconvenient to their political agenda.
Good article David.

Very interesting.

I'm not sure if this is good or bad but its interesting, I hope this bill fails as it did in the house and gets some major revisions

Mooch - What bill failed? The amendment I describe passed as part of the House stimulus package. The original bill from the last Congress also passed both the House and the Senate and was agreed in conference, but was never sent to the White House for signature because Bush said he would veto it.

If you mean the stimulus bill, it also did not fail in the House. It was passed and now the companion bill is taken up by the Senate.

Chris - I do a lot of peer-reviewing for science journals, and sometimes a paper that I think is pretty good gets trashed by one of the other reviewers (usually there are 3 independent and unknown to each other reviewers for each paper). Other times I will trash a paper and one of the other reviewers will like it. But there is definitely review by other people who are familiar with the field.

Government reports don't get the external peer review, though they usually get extensive internal review both within the Agency and from other Agencies that have relevant expertise. But as you say, sometimes a non-scientist takes "editorial license" with final reports. While these policy makers do, in fact, make policy, they shouldn't be changing the scientific conclusions based on politics.

This particular amendment tries to ensure that. There are other provisions in other laws that are supposed to protect the integrity of the science, but apparently there has been enough of a perception of need for them to strengthen it.

'It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient – especially when it's inconvenient,' Barack Obama said.

Excellent - I hadn't heard this little tidbit of information. I like Obama's comment on this one too.

Lloyd - That pretty much says it all.

There is a lot in the stimulus bill that seems to be simply slipping in things that the Democrats wanted but couldn't get through a Bush veto.

Sounds good.

I'm waiting for the comment from the conservative who finds it funny that lawyers may have more jobs, etc.

Not much of a prediction, I know.

What hoax, Charles?

Tim - I suppose you can never have too many lawyers. Or do I have that backwards?

David, interesting article. I'm with you on scientific conclusions should not be changed to fit a particular "political policy".

It is one of the more obvious points of the Obama stimulus package that the one sector of the national economy that is doing the best is still getting most of the money. The various governments themselves are the biggest single recipient of the package and will see the single largest increase in employment.

As for the whistle blowing fund, I like an idea of some sort of protection for them (and other government employees highlighting waste/theft/mismanagement. I hope however, the fund is contingency and not an opportunity for another bureaucracy to be created.

Interesting idea and perhaps should be debated and passed as a seperate bill. As a part of the bill in question, NO. It has nothing to do with creating jobs or helping the economy.

Col. - Well, it actually was debated and passed as a stand alone bill by both the House and the Senate in the last Congress, but never given to President Bush because he said he would just veto it anyway (plus, there was the whole financial meltdown thing that distracted everyone for a while). The amendment, as I understand it, is unchanged from that bill.

I agree that I can't see how it fits into the stimulus package either. But given that there is no actual appropriation for it - all it does is add some language to the existing protections - and the fact that it was already passed by Congress before anyway, I can't get too worked up about its addition.

"The various governments themselves are the biggest single recipient of the package and will see the single largest increase in employment."

I think that's part of the idea, Charles. The government funds the vast majority of public benefit projects in the country, and part of the stimulus is to put people to work fixing our infrastructure. Creates both jobs and fixes bridges before they fall. Seems fairly logical to me on its face.

"As for the whistle blowing fund, I like an idea of some sort of protection for them (and other government employees highlighting waste/theft/mismanagement. I hope however, the fund is contingency and not an opportunity for another bureaucracy to be created."

I looked back at what I wrote, Charles, just to make sure I didn't write it incorrectly. But there is no "fund" created here. They just added some extra words to the existing protections to cover some areas that seemed obvious but which they felt the previous administration had exploited. There are no appropriations nor additional offices or bureaucracies created.

Definitely some interesting comments, Miss Havisham.

thank you for sharing this

Whistle blowing should be rewarded not censored

I hear the Senate is working bipartisan now to screen out the excess non-stimulus spending passed by the House. I'm guessing that this particular measure will remain since it doesn't require any additional spending at all.

Very good news...
Thank you for posting David.

I personally feel I was pressured out of my company by management (I eventually quit) because I tried to stick to facts and the science rather than the "storyline" that the client (the US Navy) wanted to see published.

Thoughts on why it's included in the economic stimulus package (maybe a stretch): suppressing ideas, research, and reports is bad policy as shown by the tragic Bush years. Allowing the proper dissemination of information is necessary for the "stimulation" of a free people. just a thought ;)

Best,
DJE

I haven't read the admendment, but agree that whistle-blowing protection is needed.

If this particular protection was already approved by the House and Senate, it seems odd that it would be included in a stimulus package. Considering that Obama is "pro-science", I would have assumed the bill could have been sent to the White House seperately.

I'd like see the explanation for why it wasn't.

Good, another sign we're coming out of this dark age.

Tammy, I don't know why the protection wasn't simply held back for a separate bill. It seems likely that Pelosi figured something like the following (totally my guessing here, no inside information): 1) we already spent xx number of hours debating this last Congress, 2) it was already passed by both the House and Senate and agreed in conference, 3) the only reason it wasn't submitted to the President was because he said he would veto it and Congress had more pressing issues to deal with, 4) we have even more Democrats in both the House and Senate now, plus a Democrat in the White House who says he believes in science, 5) we need it (if you believe all the "Republican War on Science" stuff), 6) it doesn't cost anything (no appropriations or new bureaucracy, just a few extra lines in existing protections), and 7) let's just get it over with so we can move on to more critical issues.

Seems logical.

David, I am just thrilled it's there at all. There will still be pressure to follow the "party line" in the results. That's just human nature. But perhaps this will bring to light some of the more blatant and harmful abuses. (If we could just keep human nature away from science without sacrificing the curiosity.)

I sure hope this part gets passed, somehow, in some bill soon.

In this economic disaster and the drying up of money supplies on all fronts, will we be seeing all kinds of requests, valid and suspect? With even watch dogs on duty, can we ever prevent fraudulent claims and awards? Lots of hasty appropriations can mean opportunity for all kinds of undeserved granting of money. Hope the watchdogs are more dilligent than past performances.

BTW, the Senate is already working hard bipartisanly to make a better bill. This is as everyone expected and what always happens. It's a game the House plays.

The minority party in the House (in this case, the Republicans), get to go home to their constituents and claim that they voted against that "wasteful Democratic" bill, knowing all along that it would pass. So they get a bill that is full of their stuff in addition to the Democratic stuff, and then they can whine about how they weren't allowed to add anything (even though they did), and still get to play politics for the home crowd. In the end they get to claim that they "opposed the bill" and yet "brought home the bacon to my district," knowing that their constituents won't make the connection.

Then the Senate Republicans (or Democrats when they were in the minority) get to play the "adults" and work closer together to come up with a better bill. And both the Republicans and the Democrats in the Senate get to go home to their constituents and show how they deserve to be reelected because they make the hard decisions.

Both sides put lots of junk in, especially in the House, so they have junk to take out when it gets to the Senate. All the while both sides know that the bill will eventually pass, and everyone gets what they want out of it.

Meanwhile, President Obama has from the beginning met with both Democratic and Republican leaders, and made phone calls to various individuals on both sides of the aisle to make sure they everyone who has a good idea gets a hearing. He also has his bipartisan "cocktail parties" and today his bipartisan "Super Bowl watching" party. He has gone out of his way to talk to everyone. So when the Republicans claim that no one is listening, all he has to do is remind them of when he called or they shared a beer together. And he knows that this also keeps the Democrats from getting too partisan (at least in appearance) because then they would show up as the outlier in this whole political dance.

W00T! Too bad this couldn't have been an independent piece of legislation, but I'll take it however it get\s there.

I'm thinkin' that it's about time that real science had its turn.

Most scientists think that way too, Chuck. But then we're biased. LOL

interesting post David.

It is diabolically surreal that we should need such a free speech protection for objective science. It would be far better to add to this specific punishments, (retroactive) for those who intentionally supressed science. Perhaps public flogging or re-instating the stocks upon the capital mall. Pelt the evil doooers with textbooks and rolled up copies of the Constitution. As the neo-con wackos consider their legasy in centuries to come just consider how the Catholic Church was reviled for forcing Gallelio to repent his discovery that the earth was NOT the center of the universe and revolved around the sun. With any luck the Republican Party will be heaped into the same trash can of history and derision.

I'm with Col. George that this needs to be a separate bill with all its own hoopla and media attention, not buried as an amendment in a HUGE bill for something else entirely. And I agree with Sam C that part of the bill needs to address punitive measures for those who suppress whistle blowing. In light of the anti-science culture of the previous regime, this would be an important step forward out of the mire they created for honest information on crucial issues, and it needs to be held up and trumpeted as a triumph for freedom of expression within governmental departments. It's important in its own right and needs to be recognized as such.

The staffers and President Bush, himself, often melded his religious, scientific, and political views into one concept. We, the taxpayers, pay for these scientists and the Executive Branch chose to silence them, in some cases, and often politicized scientific matters to agree with their own ideological ends. I think that it is correct to try to remedy the problem. Our scientists have to be free to publish their work without interference from ideology or demagoguery. It is in the interest of the public to give them whistle blower protection. This is one aspect of the proposals that I resoundingly agree with.

Thanks all

Hi Melinda - I gave my thoughts (guesses) above on why it was included in the House stimulus. No guarantee it will still be there after the Senate passes its bill and the conference committee merges them.

The bill actually did pass as a stand alone but was never sent to Bush because he said he would veto it (and there was lots of financial meltdown things for Congress to deal with). I don't know who was involved in it, but I think it likely that various government scientists expressed their opinion.

This is pure B.S. legislation about a non-problem.

All federal employeess already have whistleblower protection!

Yes they do, and this merely adds a few lines to it at the request of federal employees who felt they weren't being protected.

David, I just heard yesterday on NPR that the Whistleblower Protection portion of the stimulus bill was removed during negotiations (I can't find the audio link now). Regarding why it was in the bill... An explanation given (whether the real one or the only one...) was that it was to ensure accountability for spending of Federal moneys from the stimulus package and allow employees to provide, without hesitation, alerts or 'red flags' when they see the money going in the 'wrong' direction.

Not sure what the explanation was for its removal... I can't understand wanting to remove such protections....

I'm a little surprised they bothered to take it out, since there weren't any direct funds involved. Probably one of those things the Republicans didn't like (for some reason they aren't big on science).

Not that big a deal I think. It was mainly to combat a problem (real or perceived) during the previous administration, and it's unlikely to be as big a problem in this one. Though it had already passed both houses of Congress, so it would likely pass if reintroduced as a stand alone bill (which I prefer anyway - more transparent that way).

If there is a concerted effort to support whistleblowers who knows where that is going to go? There are all kinds of malfeasance going on ... it seems like the aboveboard stuff is what is the exception. A rational inventory of all our problems rightly belongs on the balance sheet of the government looked at altogether in its totality.

Bruce, there are definitely protections for whistleblowers already on the books. This would have added some additional protections for specific kinds of things that seemed to be problematic in the last administration (real and/or perceived).

David, I know that, but there seems to be a lot of news time given to unreconciled cases of whistleblowers who did not get protections they should have gotten that were not fixed. That's just an impression from what I have heard on the news in the last few years. I'm not that familiar with specific cases. But one or two of these kinds of stories has got to have a chilling effect, as does this recession if people are scared for their jobs.