How Cabinet Departments Might Handle Scientific Integrity Policies – Commerce

The other press coverage connected to yesterday’s Office of Science and Technology Policy blog post on scientific integrity policies includes this piece from Greenwire/The New York Times (H/T Gavin Baker).  As you should expect from professional journalists, there are many more details there than what I managed to collect.

I'm quoted in this @nytimes article on agencies' draft scientific integrity policies nytimes.com/gwire/2011/08/…—
Gavin Baker (@opengavin) August 12, 2011

For what it’s worth, I place myself with the others mentioned in the article that like the idea of developing scientific integrity policies, but being profoundly disappointed with the process.

Most notable amongst the additional agency details is the inclusion of this memo from the Department of Commerce, which outlines its guidance to component agencies and mentions which policies are germane to the scientific integrity effort.  It does not define a process for complaints or adjudicating scientific integrity matters.  Other cabinet departments with science elements (Departments of Energy and Health and Human Services come to mind) may follow suit, deferring specifics to those elements.

Both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), both part of the Department, are developing their own policies.  Other agencies of the Department with an interest in science will have the option to do the same.

While the Commerce memo is brief, and is focused more on policies for agency scientists than on scientific integrity policies for all, there is one section worth repeating.  Where scientific communications are concerned [brackets and bold are mine]:

“This memorandum confirms that DAO 219-1 [a Commerce Department order concerning scientific communications] allows scientists to engage in oral fundamental research communications (based on their official work) with the media and the public without notification or prior approval to their supervisor or to the Office of Public Affairs.  Electronic communications with the media related to fundamental research that are the equivalent of a dialogue are considered to be oral communications; thus, prior approval is not required for  scientist to engage in online discussions or email with the media about fundamental research, subject to restrictions on protected nonpublic information as set forth in 219-1.”

Now, DAO 219-1 distinguishes between fundamental research communications and official communications.  But my assessment of the two categories suggests that there should be no impediment to a Commerce-employed scientist being able to discuss the findings of their research to the media or the public without prior approval.  The grey area – and I think no policy or process can effectively draw a bright line here – is where scientific findings and policy implications are linked.  DAO 219-1 (and by extension, this latest Commerce memo), does note that should particular statements in research communications be construed as official Department or agency statements, that the employee must make clear that they are presenting their own conclusion, and not that of the particular agency, etc.  (The U.K. could really use binding policies along these lines.)

As always, implementation of the policy plays a huge role in its success, and I don’t expect that this Commerce guidance will eliminate future dustups over scientific communications to the public.  But it does set some useful guidelines and ground rules for when they happen.  Hopefully they get used.