![]() ![]() Such communications shall remain within the bounds of their scientific or technological findings, unless specifically otherwise authorized.” The controversial text reads: “ scientists shall refrain from making or publishing statements that could be construed as being judgments of, or recommendations on, or any other federal government policy, unless they have secured appropriate prior approval to do so. Ironically, the rule was included in a section entitled “Ensuring the Free Flow of Scientific Information”. ![]() The Biden administration rewrite was supposed to strengthen the document, but Ruch said it remains vague, and text was also inserted as a “gag rule”. “The policies were so ineffective that it provided the Trump administration cover – that was worse than no policy at all,” Ruch said. He noted former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt cited the policy when he barred three agency employees from talking about water quality issues in Rhode Island. The Trump administration then capitalized on its weaknesses to use it as cover to make controversial decisions, Ruch said. The framework was developed during the Obama administration but seen as vague and incomplete. The rule was issued last month as part of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s (OSTP) rewrite of the Framework for Federal Scientific Integrity Policy and Practice, composed of employee procedures the administration’s agencies can implement. ![]() “Government scientists should not need to cast a profile in courage to openly discuss the implications of their research.” “Besides being unconstitutional, the prohibition serves no discernible public purpose,” he said. It would only benefit industrial players who oppose research that could lead to policy changes or stricter regulations, Ruch added. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |