In a surprise move, the US government published in the Thursday, April 23rd Federal Register a "request for public comment" on a scientific integrity memo. This relates to the memorandum issued by President Obama on March 9, 2009, in which he required "the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to craft recommendations for Presidential action to ensure scientific integrity in the executive branch." I discussed the memo in a previous post.
The Federal Register notice "solicits public input to inform the drafting of those recommendations." The notice asks "a series of questions to help guide the public in responding to this request."
As defined in the current Federal Register notice, the six principles of the President's March 3rd memorandum, and on which public comments are solicited are:
(a) The selection and retention of candidates for science and
technology positions in the executive branch should be based on the
candidate's knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity;
(b) Each agency should have appropriate rules and procedures to
ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the agency;
(c) When scientific or technological information is considered in policy decisions, the information should be subject to well-established scientific processes, including peer review where appropriate, and each agency should appropriately and accurately reflect that information in complying with and applying relevant statutory standards.
(d) Except for information that is properly restricted from disclosure under procedures established in accordance with statute, regulation, Executive Order, or Presidential Memorandum, each agency should make available to the public the scientific or technological findings or conclusions considered or relied on in policy decisions;
(e) Each agency should have in place procedures to identify and
address instances in which the scientific process or the integrity of
scientific and technological information may be compromised; and
(f) Each agency should adopt such additional procedures, including any appropriate whistleblower protections, as are necessary to ensure the integrity of scientific and technological information and processes on which the agency relies in its decision-making or otherwise uses or prepares.
There is a 21 day period for public comment from April 23, 2009 to May 13, 2009.
The fact that this request for public comment relates to a presidential memorandum - which generally are edicts from the President without any public input - is a sign of a greater openness not just in providing the final results but also the underlying research and the process that went into developing the final outcome. It instills a greater degree of public confidence in the scientific process. It also gives all viewpoints - dissenting opinions as well as proponents - a chance to be heard. Which is likely to increase the chances of strong science-based policy decisions being made with less ideological manipulation.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 52
Unless you mean why did he issue the original scientific integrity memo in the first place? In which case the answer is to be found in the constant perception that the previous administration would "wordsmith" scientific reports to the point where they no longer reflected the scientific intent. The idea is to make policy decisions based on the science, not to force the science into backing up your policy decisions.
This shouldn't be confused with the Administrative Procedures Act, which does set up a process for reviewing actual agency decisions and the establishment of regulations. In those cases the agencies must publish "proposed rules" in the Federal Register and require a suitable comment period, after which all comments must be addressed and a "final rule" again published in the Federal Register. The APA also requires publishing of various other non-rulemaking notifications and sets up a system for judicial review.
So in this case, in the interest of transparency, as well as in the interest of getting ideas from a wide range of stakeholders, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has opted to voluntarily use the Federal Register process.
I have little hope that the memo will influence activists like Carol Browner who have always been agenda driven.
Um-m-m-m-m... no. No regulation applies. This is a first. As for an "organizational" decision, I'm not sure what you meant. It's likely that President Obama did, in fact, consult his advisers on this, if for no other reason than that it IS a non-required approach.
What the President man not realize is that people will expect this in future, and he will not be able to do this for every Executive Order.
As for Carol Browner, you have mentioned her before as being "agenda driven," and yet you provide no examples or explanations of what you mean by that.
That's probably true. Though not all executive orders would lend themselves to getting public input anyway. And some may not even be made public at all for security reasons. But it is a start, and it does seem appropriate to be transparent in a process that is designed to ensure scientific integrity.
I don't like to think cynically, but let's face it - it's government.
Could this be a red herring? We become accustomed to solicitations for our input while other nefarious business is going on undisclosed...
Executive Orders aren't likely to EVER be subject to such review.
And I followed suit without even registering the distinction. Alas.
What do you have in mind, Kenn? They are asking for input on this issue.
Obviously, there are a million other things also going on with the government, and Obama seems to have much more energy and expansive thinking than most of his predecessors based on the sheer number of things he has going on already.
"President Obama's Memorandum on Scientific Integrity directs administration officials to neither suppress nor alter scientific and technological findings, and make information developed for the government available to the public. Our long winter is over. "
Amen to that!
Actually I don't mind being partisan, but it's not really about being partisan. How can we expect to actually work the problem, to actually inject science into policy, if we continue to corrupt the science with politics? And the ultimate irony, as we see by some of your responses above, is that the same people who injected politics into science in the first place are now accusing the Obama administration of doing what they in fact did. Is that ever a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
That's the key. Science must remain science. It tells us what it tells us. Then it is up to us to take responsibility for making policy choices out in the open that take into consideration the facts of the science and all the other factors that must be considered when making policy.
On its face - it is great that the Executive Office is seeking public input. I should just leave it there and not presume that it's business-as-usual circa 2000-2008.
I appreciate that you called me to rethink what I had posted.
I would like to have those five days for comment if it ever happens...
Mooch
So we have an opportunity to make our thoughts known. Thus it is our responsibility to think honestly and provide meaningful input. No more chanting party line bumper sticker phrases with no meaning. We all need to put honest effort into trying to make this a better country. There are no longer any excuses for not doing so.
Thank you for the article.
Why did he do it? The obvious is that President Obama is an open and a person of political integrity.
Now my concerns with the value of this effort; if the words and phrases used are open to personal interpretation then the value goes to the lowest level of desired selection.
“a) The selection and retention of candidates for science and
technology positions in the executive branch should be based on the
candidate's knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity;” If the guidance document doesn’t define credentials, experience, or integrity then what value will have. I suspect you description of credentials maybe be focused on academic history while my may focus on actual practices, you focus of experience maybe on pure/basic research and my may be on industrial application, and you may feel integrity should solely be to the scientific process and my maybe expanded to include social and personal integrity. Those difference may not seem to great or that important, to me it can mean the difference of focusing on some nebulous promise of hope with the disregard for the individuals’ rights and immediate impact.
“(b) Each agency should have appropriate rules and procedures to
ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the agency;
” I hear a lot about the scientific process, in most such documents that apply to private sector they would describe this process or include a broadly accepted description to ensure a clear understanding, and yet here again they leave it to the individual agencies to decide what that is.
This lack of clarity, whether planned or simply based on lack of experience (since for those applying to the private sector have specificity), diminishes the impact of the effort. It sounds good out of the gate, however, in practicality it is unlikely to elevate the performance or practices related to any of the items it is written to address.
After going through this thought process I maybe the President is as different politician as I felt at the start of these comments.
I must admit, based on the document I am hard pressed to see what value it has. It might have been much more effective to have a Presidential order that lays out the rules President Obama wants followed, something that he can openly and directly influence.
Good for him, and for us!
Clay
It is those things that we can NOT see that worry us--sometimes needlessly, sometimes with reason. I say let us shine a bright and beautiful light every time we can. Loose the fear--bring on the brightest bulbs!
Wilka