Science and the Government

(This article now cross-posted at AtlasBlogged)

Part of the problem with government funded science is that money is the rudder of scientific research. If scientific research is funded by a private individual, organization, or corporation, then the aims of the research are plain, and scientists know ahead of time what they are in for. But with government funding, researchers often believe that they should be given free rein to seek "truth", and the public believes that their findings represent "truth", and often fail to view the findings with the skepticism that true science demands.
Furthermore, the findings of these scientists do not belong to them individually, and accusations of silencing by the government are not hard to find - especially when research is begun under one administration and ends under another. And, in some cases, those accusations might be true... and that might or might not be done with good reason, which makes the situation even more mucked up. The whole enterprise of science becomes a political battleground - something that irks scientists who feel entitled to the funding and the findings.

Consider NASA's budgetary balancing act. The agency is being asked to retire the shuttle fleet and bring on a new generation of launch vehicle over the next decade (see previous), and in order to afford doing so, they are cutting funds to other projects. From the Hampton Roads Daily Press:

Leaders of the House Science Committee launched a bipartisan assault on President Bush's proposed budget for NASA on Thursday, saying the plan makes troubling cuts in aeronautics and science programs to finance a manned mission to the moon and Mars.

Two years after Bush announced his plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020, the initiative is triggering wrenching changes within NASA that are raising alarms in Congress.

NASA's 2007 budget calls for a 30.4 percent increase in space exploration systems over the current year's spending level. Much of that money would go to develop a Crew Exploration Vehicle to replace the aging fleet of space shuttles.

But to finance that increase with relatively little new money next year, NASA would have to cut spending on aeronautics research by 18 percent. Langley Research Center in Hampton, which specializes in aeronautics, is expecting a budget cut of about $50 million next year.

While science programs would get a modest funding boost of 1.5 percent next year, lawmakers complained that a new five-year plan calls for a $3.1 billion cut compared with last year's projections. The magnitude of that cut, aides said, could affect things as varied as the Mars robotic exploration programs, advanced telescopes to find planets around distant stars, and programs to observe phenomena such as black holes.

"I am extremely uneasy about this budget, and I am in a quandary at this point about what to do about it," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., the committee chairman, who summoned NASA Administrator Michael Griffin to Capitol Hill to discuss the spending plan.

"This budget is bad for space science, worse for earth science and perhaps even worse still for aeronautics."

We are apparently of the belief that space science would not exist if it were not for NASA, and a cut in NASA science expenditures will lead us back to the dark ages. The answer, I suppose, is more funding - because government spending isn't yet enough, right?

From the Charlottesville Observer:

We're glad concerned NASA scientists and officials have decided to speak out. And we hope President Bush and his political advisers learn a lesson from this whole, ugly affair: Trying to muzzle scientists whose findings are politically inconvenient is a terrible idea. And it usually doesn't work, either.

This is true, but this also assumes that the muzzling is wholly a matter of dirty politicians trying to impose religion over Truth. That is not a safe generalization, even if you believe it to be the case here.

The AP reports that the House Science Committee on Thursday demanded more transparency and scientific openness. It is a noble demand, but it is simply unrealistic. The immediate issue is very offensive; a NASA PR officer resigned...

...after he was accused of trying to limit reporters' access to a noted NASA climate scientist and insisting that a Web designer insert the word "theory" with any mention of the Big Bang.

But not every issue of scientific openness or censorship will be this cut and dry, and government would be well served to stick to research that has direct and legitimate use by government agencies, most notably the military.

To emphasize my point, I direct readers to this article: NASA and NOAA Open Science Policies Not Matched at EPA.

Despite public concerns about Bush administration political interference with science, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requiring prior headquarters approval for all communications by its scientists with the media, according to an agency email released Thursday by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a national association of government workers in natural science agencies.

The scientists quoted in this article sound very reasonable - how come NASA and NOAA scientists are told to engage the public in open dialogue, but EPA scientists have to go through their PR department? But the fact of the matter is that every interview that starts with "I work at the EPA..." is one that purports (implicitly or explicitly) to be an official statement of the agency, the government, and the scientific community. The agency is absolutely correct to have a level of oversight in this - the most liberal policy should be one of uncensored access to EPA scientists, but with the agency made fully aware of all interviews and speeches, and able to denounce, deny, or fire the scientist, depending on the content of the comments. It is wholly inappropriate to allow individual scientists (who after all have political agendas of their own) to represent an agency and the people of the United States, without any supervision.