What Happened to Obama’s Commitment to Scientific Integrity?

 

Today, March 9, is the one-year anniversary of President Obama’s scientific integrity memo which instructed his staff to produce within 120 days recommendations for ensuring independence of federal scientists and limiting political interference in their work. 365 days later, we’re still waiting.

expect delays The Union of Concerned Scientists is critical of the delay. Francesca Grifo, director of UCS’s scientific integrity program, had this to say:

While the new administration has been generally supportive of scientific integrity values, it's moving too slowly to establish badly needed reforms. The current system still discourages scientists from communicating about their research results, for example. It still keeps the public in the dark about the scientific basis for policy decisions, and it still rewards staffers who keep quiet about political interference in science. 

The criteria Obama laid out in his March 9, 2009, memo are admirable: hiring and keeping qualified scientists; defining new policies to ensure integrity; using “well-established scientific processes” like peer review; disclosing scientific findings; ensuring that scientific integrity principles are being adhered to; and adopting additional policies like whistleblower protections.

But by failing to follow up with a concrete set of reforms, Obama and John Holdren – the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy who was tasked with developing recommendations – are sending a terrible message to those who believe scientific integrity ought to be a priority for this administration.

Interference in science reached new heights under President George W. Bush; but just because Bush is gone does not mean the problems go away too. As OMB Watch discusses in the latest issue of our e-newsletter The Watcher, a new report from the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP) proves that much work remains. SKAPP interviewed federal scientists during both the Bush and Obama administrations, and found that although there were a few bright spots in scientists' views of the changes that had occurred, a majority felt similar frustrations.

Couple this delay with the now year-plus delay on Obama’s effort to improve the regulatory process by writing a new executive order, and my outlook on the administration’s commitment to government reform is dimming.

Photo by Flickr user davidfntau. Used under a Creative Commons license.

(Matthew Madia 03/09/10)

Comments

Therefore, the privatization

Therefore, the privatization of the Central and Eastern European countries simply be "political interpretation" or short boots "ideological interpretation" is completely wrong. Privatization in these countries are adapted to local conditions. In Poland, for example, the Polish trade union is very strong, 38 million people during the height of the 10 million people in the union, it's no collectivization of agriculture, so it's out of state assets in the process, the employee ownership played a significant factor. Czech Republic ankle boots has a strong left-wing tradition, it is relatively good macroeconomic situation, the options are given to each of the national state-owned assets. Hungary is the most praiseworthy outsiders "sell", this is the year when Hungary's external debt level is very important, but also to sell state assets to foreign debt. But no matter what way, it is important to be open, transparent and fair. Way during the course of these forces is actually a game process, the role of government in which the will is very limited, in the game left, right, centrist, state-owned enterprises, private enterprises, foreign invested enterprises, controlling persons, Football Cleats for Sale minority shareholders, managers and employees have a direct association or through political parties put forward their claims agents

Good

I think, this theme is quite actual now. The criteria Obama laid out in his March 9, 2009, memo are admirable: hiring and keeping qualified scientists; defining new policies to ensure integrity; using “well-established scientific processes” like peer review; disclosing scientific findings; ensuring that scientific integrity principles are being adhered to; and adopting additional policies like whistleblower protections.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.