Background

In recent years, there have been a number of allegations concerning  interference with federal researchers in their efforts to disseminate their  research results to a wider audience, external to their agency. Many of  these allegations have concerned interference with researchers’ attempts  to speak with the media or present research findings at conferences. These  claims have frequently surrounded research on politically sensitive topics,  such as climate change and the role it may play in connection to other  weather events, such as hurricanes. For example, some federal  researchers have alleged that they were not allowed to use the phrase  “global warming,” and others have alleged that NOAA has limited scientific  debate by not reporting all of the research regarding a possible connection  between global warming and increased hurricane intensity.
These concerns have resulted in a number of inquiries into the  dissemination practices and policies at several federal agencies. For  example, in May 2006, in response to a congressional request, the National  Science Foundation’s National Science Board examined the existing  policies of selected federal science agencies, including NASA and NOAA,  to determine if they contained steps to ensure the credibility of research  results and insulate these results from suppression or distortion. The  board found that there was no consistent federal policy regarding the  dissemination of research results by federal employees and recommended  that all agencies that conduct research establish policies and procedures  to encourage an open exchange of data and results. The board also  recommended that the administration develop and issue an overarching  set of principles for the communication of scientific information by  government scientists, policymakers, and managers that could be used as  the framework under which each agency would develop its specific  policies and procedures.
In addition to the National Science Board review, other groups have  sought information on the dissemination activities of federal agencies. For  example, in 2005, Environmental Science and Technology, an online and  print journal published by the American Chemical Society, requested and  received copies of NOAA Office of Public Affairs documents through the  Freedom of Information Act pertaining to climate change, including  exchanges between NOAA scientists and public affairs staff. Furthermore,  in September 2006, 14 Senators requested that the Inspectors General at  Commerce and NASA investigate reports of political interference with the  work of scientists at NASA and NOAA. In February 2007, the Union of  Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project, two  nongovernmental advocacy organizations, jointly issued a report  examining the extent to which politics play a role in scientific research.  More recently, over the first few months of 2007, Congress has held  several hearings exploring allegations of political interference with the  work of government climate change scientists.
A number of federal agencies conduct scientific research that is used to  inform federal policy decisions. This report focuses on NASA and 2 of the  13 agencies within Commerce—NIST and NOAA. NASA’s organic  statute—the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended— calls for NASA to “provide for the widest practicable and appropriate  dissemination” of the scientific and technical information resulting from  NASA’s research efforts. This work is structured around four mission  areas—aeronautics research, exploration systems, science, and space  operations—and is performed at 10 research and flight centers across the  United States. Each of these centers performs a variety of research,  engineering, construction, and support functions related to the mission  areas, and each has a separate management structure, including a center  director, to guide its activities. Furthermore, each center has its own  public affairs office that is responsible for managing the center’s media  contacts and communications. In addition, NASA headquarters has its own  public affairs office that oversees agencywide programs and activities to  coordinate and maintain open and credible communication channels to  the news media and the public.
Each of Commerce’s 13 agencies is headed by its own director,  undersecretary, or assistant secretary. Even though each of these agencies  has its own public affairs office, Commerce’s Office of Public Affairs is  responsible for overseeing public affairs interactions for the department,  such as issuing press releases and answering media inquiries, as well as  for keeping abreast of the activities at all 13 agencies, many of which  disseminate research results, as is the case with NIST and NOAA. NIST’s  mission is “to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by  advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that  enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.” To a large  extent, this mission is fulfilled by the research undertaken by scientists,  engineers, and technical experts at the agency’s Maryland and Colorado  facilities. NIST is specifically required to disseminate research conducted  under several of its programs. Most research at NIST is conducted at one  of its eight laboratories, covering research areas such as manufacturing  engineering, physics, and information technology. It is NIST’s policy to  publish the results of these technical programs openly, widely, and  promptly, and this is accomplished through scientific reports issued by  researchers as well as press releases and Web-based newsletters issued by  NIST’s Public and Business Affairs Office. NOAA is the largest of the  Commerce agencies, and its work is structured around four program  goals—ecosystems, climate, weather and water, and commerce and  transportation—and seven operating organizations, or program offices.  Similar to NASA and NIST, NOAA headquarters has a public affairs  office—the Office of Communications—which is led by a director and  tasked with facilitating media and public communications with the  agency. Each of NOAA’s program offices also has a public affairs officer  who reports to the director of the Office of Communications and serves as  the primary public affairs contact for program office researchers.
Research dissemination at each of these agencies is guided by  departmental or agency policies. In addition, the Office of Management  and Budget (OMB) has also issued guidelines and bulletins that have an  impact on the dissemination of research results. For example, in October  2001, OMB issued its Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the  Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated  by Federal Agencies, which required agencies to issue their own  guidelines to ensure the quality of information being disseminated. NASA,  NIST, and NOAA have all issued their own information quality guidelines.  In addition, OMB issued the Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer  Review in December 2004 that established governmentwide guidance  establishing that important scientific information shall be peer-reviewed  by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the federal  government. Among other things, the bulletin provides guidance to federal  agencies on what information is subject to peer review and requires  agencies to begin a systematic process of peer-review planning for  influential scientific information (including highly influential scientific  assessments) that the agency plans to disseminate in the foreseeable  future.
In addition to the research activities of specific agencies, OSTP advises the  President and others in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) on the  effects of science and technology on matters being considered in the  policymaking process. OSTP serves as a source of scientific and  technological information and advice for the President with respect to  major policies of the federal government and acts as the scientific and  technical arm of the EOP policymaking process. As part of this work,  OSTP and OMB collaborate to help agencies develop research and  development budgets to address national priorities. OSTP meets regularly  with agency staff as well as representatives of industry, academia, and the  general public to seek or share information about science and technology  policy and leads interagency efforts to develop and implement science and  technology policies.

	NASA, NIST, and NOAA Policies Generally Facilitate the Dissemination of Research, but Some Do Not

Researchers at NASA, NIST, and NOAA must comply with both office  specific and agencywide or departmental-level policies, most of which  facilitate dissemination of research. NASA’s researchers are subject to  agency-level policies and center-specific policies for the dissemination of  research through publications, presentations, press releases, and media  interviews, and these policies generally facilitate dissemination. NIST and  NOAA have agency-level policies that generally facilitate the dissemination  of research results through publications and presentations. Researchers at  NIST and NOAA must follow both agency-level policies and guidance and  Commerce’s department-level policies if they want to disseminate their  research through media interviews and press releases. However, NOAA’s  agency-level and Commerce’s department-level policies may hinder  dissemination through these routes.

		NASA Policies Provide Clear Guidance to Facilitate Research Dissemination

At NASA, researchers must comply with both agencywide policies and  center-specific policies when disseminating research results, regardless of  the form this dissemination takes. For example, for publications and  presentations, all researchers are directed to comply with the agency’s  policy for approval, publication, and dissemination of scientific and  technical information. Scientific and technical information is defined as  the results—including facts, analyses, and conclusions—of basic and  applied scientific, technical, and related engineering research and  development. This information can be disseminated through a variety of  channels, including NASA publications, outside journals, presentations at  meetings or workshops, and Web sites. The policy directs that all scientific  and technical information released outside the agency through these  means must be reviewed to determine whether public access to it should  be prohibited or restricted, for national security or intellectual property  reasons. In addition, NASA’s policies direct that all research results that  are to be disseminated undergo professional and technical reviews to  ensure that the information is being clearly communicated, is technically  accurate, and meets data quality standards. These technical review and  management approval procedures vary depending upon the information  content, publication route, and intended audience—domestic or  international. To indicate that a document has completed the necessary  reviews, researchers generally must complete two forms—one identifying  what restrictions, if any, need to be placed on the document prior to  dissemination and the other indicating that the document has undergone  technical peer review. NASA managers with whom we spoke at the centers  said that they found the agency’s policies to be clear, easy to follow, and  similar to procedures researchers follow in the academic community,  although some said that the agency’s reviews to identify security  restrictions can be cumbersome at times.
Regarding dissemination of research through media interviews and press  releases, researchers at NASA are subject to the agency’s policy on the  release of information to news and information media, hereafter referred  to as the “media policy.” This policy, which was revised in March 2006,  governs the release of information to the media, especially information  with the potential to generate significant media or public interest,  including press releases, media advisories, news features, and Web  postings. According to NASA, the media policy in place prior to March  2006 had not been substantively modified since 1987 and required  clarification to be both useful and practical to implement. Furthermore,  the NASA public affairs policy review team, composed of representatives  from throughout NASA’s scientific and public affairs offices, found that  the previous policies were convoluted, bureaucratic, and resulted in a  breakdown between researchers and public affairs staff.
We found that NASA’s revised 2006 media policy is generally clear and  should help facilitate dissemination of research results by devolving  decision making and providing a process to resolve disputes. The policy,  its accompanying “Frequently Asked Questions” guide, and statements by  the NASA Administrator assert NASA’s commitment to a culture of  openness with the media and the public and affirm that the agency values  the free exchange of ideas, data, and information as part of scientific and  technical inquiry. The policy defines the roles, responsibilities, and  methods of coordination for managers, researchers, and public affairs staff  and lays out guidelines for working with the public affairs office, clearly  stating what public affairs officials can and cannot do. Specifically,  regarding media interviews, the updated policy clearly affirms that NASA  employees may speak to the media and public about their work without  prior approval; however, they must notify their immediate supervisor and  their center public affairs office immediately thereafter. While researchers  are encouraged to have a public affairs official present during interviews,  it is not required and the policy clearly defines the role of public affairs  staff as one of logistical support and clarification, not interference. Finally,  the policy states that NASA employees may communicate conclusions on  the basis of their research to the media. However, NASA employees who  present personal views outside of their official area of expertise or  responsibility must make clear that they are presenting their individual  views and not those of the agency.
In addition to clarifying the policy for conducting media interviews,  NASA’s revised media policy also describes the process for dissemination  via press releases or other media items, such as news features, media  advisories, or news-related Web postings. Specifically, the policy,  augmented by accompanying operating procedures, clearly outlines the  coordination, review, and approval process that is required prior to issuing  a press release. While some public affairs officials and managers told us  that some of the reviews for press releases can require more time than  available to meet the deadlines of the news cycle, they also felt that the  revised policy had improved the approval process. In addition, the policy  specifically delegates authority to NASA centers, independent of  headquarters, to issue public information that is of local interest, among  other things. Items eligible for issuance by the centers include releases on  specific research topics that have a targeted audience, such as the  development of a new “superplastic” that would be of interest to people  who use polymers, or an announcement of an upcoming lecture series to  be held at the center. Delegating authority to the centers to issue their own  press releases allows NASA to better publicize the work it does to targeted  audiences of interest. Finally, the revised media policy describes the  process for researchers to use when they disagree with the agency’s  decision regarding whether to issue a press release or another type of  public information. The policy allows such appeals to be elevated to the  Office of the Administrator for resolution, if needed.

		NIST and NOAA Policies Provide Clear Guidance to Facilitate the Dissemination of Research through Publications and Presentations

NIST’s publication and presentation policy, called the Technical  Communications Program, generally facilitates the dissemination of  scientific results. Similar to NASA’s publications policy, NIST’s policy  clearly describes the extent and type of reviews for technical and scientific  accuracy that are required before publications and presentations may be  released outside the agency. For example, abstracts and outlines for talks  that are not of a sensitive nature and will be limited in distribution can be  approved by the researcher’s division chief and do not need to go through  a more extensive review. However, manuscripts for journals and books  that are intended for public distribution must be reviewed and approved  by the laboratory to which the researcher belongs as well as the NIST  Editorial Review Board. This board, composed of NIST technical authors  and editors from all organizational units, conducts a critical evaluation of  the technical content and methodology, among other things. If the review  board does not support publication, it generally recommends changes,  which if made by the author, would result in approval. If the author  chooses not to accept these changes, the policy delineates the steps that  the author should take to resolve any disagreement. NIST managers said  that the guidance and procedures for getting potential publications  through the editorial review process and disseminated were adequate,  clear, and readily accessible to researchers on the internal NIST Web site.
Similar to NIST, NOAA’s publication and presentation policy facilitates  research dissemination and clearly describes the process for disseminating  scientific and technical publications. Specifically, NOAA’s policy  encourages each program office to review, edit, and disseminate its own  publications, and the policy clearly delegates responsibility to each  program office to ensure the scientific and technical quality of its  publications and presentations. Furthermore, NOAA has developed a  standard form to guide the review process and to document final approval  for release. In addition, several NOAA program offices have supplemented  these agencywide policies with office-specific ones. For example, the  National Weather Service’s policy clearly delineates the review and  approval process for their publications. Similarly, the National  Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service created an office- specific form that documents the multiple reviews a proposed manuscript  must undergo. This form, signed by the branch chief, division chief, and  office director or deputy director, certifies that a research paper is worthy  of scientific review or useful for education or outreach purposes. Several  NOAA managers told us that NOAA’s publication review process was clear  and worked well.

		Researchers at NIST and NOAA Have to Comply with Commerce and Agency-Specific Policies for the Dissemination of Research through Media Interviews and Press Releases

Researchers at NIST and NOAA are subject to Commerce’s department- level policies when disseminating research results through media  interviews and press releases; however, these policies are outdated and  unrealistic and can impede the dissemination of research results. At NIST,  researchers have been provided with agency-specific guidance to  supplement Commerce’s department-level media interview and press  release policies. At NOAA, researchers must also adhere to agency-level  media and press release policies, which are generally unclear and can lead  to inconsistent interpretations that can further hinder the dissemination of  research through these dissemination routes.

			Researchers at NIST and NOAA Are Subject to Outdated Commerce Policies for Media Interviews and Press Releases

Researchers at NIST and NOAA must follow Commerce’s department-level  policies for dissemination of research results through media interviews  and press releases; however, these policies, which have not been revised  for over 20 years, are outdated and unrealistic. Commerce policies direct  all of its constituent agencies to submit all proposed media interviews and  press releases to its Office of Public Affairs for review and approval, and  the department does not delegate authority to approve any of these  activities to the agency-level public affairs office. Because Commerce’s  public affairs office is responsible for overseeing the media activities for  13 agencies, according to Commerce officials, it is not realistic to expect  this office to review every media interview and press release request that  each of these agencies generates. For example, from a large agency like  NOAA, the volume of media requests can range from dozens on a normal  business day to hundreds following a major event, such as a tsunami. In  addition, Commerce’s policy states that disputes concerning a potential  media interview or press releases that are not resolved by the Director of  Public Affairs shall be referred to the Secretary of Commerce.
At a February 2007 Senate hearing, a Commerce official referred to the  department’s communication policies as “contradictory” and “woefully  outdated.” These policies, which have not been revised since 1983, were  implemented prior to the expansion and widespread adoption of newer  media outlets, such as the Internet and 24-hour cable news stations, and  therefore do not take these routes of dissemination into consideration.  While officials from Commerce’s Office of Public Affairs said that they  would like to be informed about all press releases and interviews, they  realize that this request is not realistic given the volume of releases from  some agencies. Consequently, Commerce public affairs officials  acknowledged that even though it is required, they do not generally review  low-level or routine releases.
To streamline the approval process and respond to allegations by some  researchers about the department’s interference with media dissemination  of research results, Commerce began an effort in November 2005 to revise  its media and communications policies. According to a Commerce official,  this effort included three rounds of input. During the first round,  Commerce solicited informal feedback from managers and some scientists  at selected agencies, including at NIST and NOAA. As part of the  subsequent two rounds, Commerce solicited input from managers and  public affairs officials at all Commerce agencies. In addition, these  officials were encouraged to share the draft with researchers and other  public affairs officials within their agency to obtain their feedback and  input. We reviewed a draft of the revised policy in March 2007. Because  the final policy was released after our audit work was completed, we did  not conduct a detailed evaluation of the new policy. However, we did note  that the revised policy included provisions to address some of the  concerns we identified with the prior policy. For example, the revised  policy affirms the department’s support for open and free communication  of scientific and technical ideas, findings, and conclusions based on  researchers’ official work and asserts that researchers are free to  participate in interviews, without prior approval, on matters directly  related to their research. In addition, the revised policy takes other  positive steps, such as the inclusion of an appeals process and the  clarification of the role of the public affairs office. However, it also  contains some unclear elements that may cause confusion for the agencies  and researchers who are trying to adhere to the policy. The policy was  officially released on March 29, 2007, and, according to a Commerce  official, it will be accompanied by a training program to educate public  affairs officials on how to implement it.

			Researchers at NIST Have Been Provided with Supplemental Agency Guidance

To supplement Commerce policies for dissemination of research results  through media interviews and press releases, NIST has issued Web-based  guidance that provides an overview of the Commerce policy and serves as  a reference tool for NIST researchers who interact with the media. The  guidance on responding to media inquiries explicitly states that interview  requests from the media are to be cleared in advance through Commerce’s  Office of Public Affairs. In addition, this guidance provides information on  Commerce’s media policy in a question-and-answer format, including  instructions that researchers should discuss only the research facts and  should not express personal opinions when communicating with the  media.
NIST managers commented that while NIST issues between 30 and 50  press releases a year, they have found that other dissemination methods,  such as e-mailing a biweekly publication called Tech Beat, have been a  more effective way to reach the media. In fact, the managers estimated  that 60 percent of the news articles about NIST research are generated  from Tech Beat articles. Like press releases, Tech Beat articles go through  the Commerce review and approval process, and they are subject to NIST  technical and scientific review. NIST officials with whom we spoke said  that while they forward most proposed interview requests to Commerce  for review and approval, they generally do not seek approval for  interviews that result from a press release or from a Tech Beat article  previously approved by Commerce.

			Researchers at NOAA Are Subject to Unclear Agency- Level Media Interview and Press Release Dissemination Policies

In addition to adhering to Commerce’s policies for media interviews and  press releases, researchers at NOAA must also follow NOAA-specific  policies and procedures, which are at times unclear, leading to  inconsistent interpretation. For example, regarding media interviews, one  part of NOAA’s policy directs its employees to inform NOAA headquarters  or program office public affairs officials prior to participating in interviews  that are of national news interest, concern regulatory or controversial  issues, or pertain to research having potential policy interest; however,  another part of this policy states that responsibility of the NOAA  headquarters’ public affairs office is to approve and coordinate media  communications, including interviews and press releases. As a result of  this unclear language, public affairs officials have interpreted these  requirements differently. Some believe that researchers are required to  obtain prior approval for all interviews, while others believe researchers  must notify the public affairs office after an interview has occurred. This  has resulted in an uneven application of the policy among researchers.  Furthermore, the policy does not define what qualifies as “of national  news interest” or “controversial,” thereby leaving the interpretation to  each individual.
In addition, some of NOAA’s procedures required for media interview  approvals can be burdensome and could delay dissemination of research.  To seek approval for a media interview, NOAA program office public  affairs staff are expected to complete a form that contains information  about the topic, the potential questions, the media outlet, and the reporter,  among other things. The completed form is forwarded to the headquarters’  public affairs office for review and approval. However, while interview  approvals typically occur within a few hours, in some cases they have  arrived after the reporters’ deadlines, resulting in missed interviews,  according to NOAA public affairs officials. Furthermore, some of these  officials expressed concern that reporters may shy away from contacting  NOAA researchers because of the drawn out approval process, ultimately  causing NOAA to miss opportunities to inform the public about its work.
Regarding press releases, NOAA public affairs officials have also  interpreted approval requirements differently from one another. For  example, some officials believe that the policy requires all press releases  to be approved by the NOAA headquarters’ public affairs office, while  others believe headquarters approval is not required for releases of  regional interest or involving routine activities. NOAA’s press release  policy, unlike NASA’s policy, does not distinguish between press releases  on local topics and press releases on national topics and does not delegate  authority to program office public affairs officials to issue such press  releases. However, according to public affairs officials with whom we  spoke, routine releases may not warrant the same scrutiny as ones likely  to be of national interest or controversial. For example, a NOAA public  affairs official commented that routine releases about StormReady—a  community safety and emergency preparedness program—should be  treated differently from press releases that have a broader scope, such as  annual releases of climate data.
According to NOAA public affairs officials, the approval process for press  releases is lengthy and burdensome, and approvals that took 1 to 2 days a  few years ago can now take as long as 2 weeks to obtain. This is because  the process involves 13 separate steps for approval that begin after the  press release has been drafted, which itself can be a lengthy process. (See  fig. 1.) In November 2006, another requirement was added to the approval  process—that is, a public affairs briefing memorandum must precede  certain requests to issue a press release, such as those involving a  controversial or “hot” topic. According to a senior NOAA public affairs  official, the intent of requiring the memorandum was to inform NOAA  management about upcoming announcements and help ensure that the  program office public affairs staff had gathered enough information about  the proposed release to judge its merit.
The myriad steps in the approval process can hinder the timely issuance of  press releases. As was the case with delays in approving interviews,  officials told us press releases that come out too late are in danger of not  making it into the news and cited several instances in which requests to  issue press releases never received an approval or a denial from  headquarters public affairs and, consequently, were never released.  Moreover, no explanation for the lack of response was offered to the  public affairs office or the researcher. Furthermore, officials at a NOAA  laboratory have become discouraged from seeking press releases for  research conducted at the laboratory because of delays and the lack of  responsiveness to such requests, further limiting NOAA’s ability to  publicize its research.

	Despite Agencies’ Efforts to Communicate Research Dissemination and Dispute Resolution Policies, Many Researchers Are Not Confident about How to Comply with Them

According to our survey, researchers at NASA, NIST, and NOAA usually  learned about their agency’s dissemination policies through informal  communication methods, rather than through formal training provided by  their agency. In addition, more researchers at the three agencies are  confident that they understand their agency’s policies on the  dissemination of research through publications and presentations well  enough to comply with them, than are confident that they understand their  agency’s media interview and press release policies. Furthermore, many  researchers at NASA, NIST, and NOAA are unsure whether their agency’s  policies allow them to discuss research results with potential policy  implications or to express personal views related to federal policy  decisions. Finally, we estimate that only one-quarter of all researchers  across the three agencies are aware of their agency’s processes to appeal  decisions made regarding requested dissemination.

		Most Researchers Learned about Agency Dissemination Policies through Informal Methods

According to our survey and agency officials with whom we spoke,  researchers at NASA, NIST, and NOAA were most likely to learn about  their agency’s dissemination policies through informal communication  methods. Most researchers at each agency learned about these policies  through a variety of informal means, such as e-mails from their agency or  operating unit managers, or through on-the-job training with supervisors.  Researchers were less likely to learn about agency dissemination policies  through formal training sessions, a method that agency officials told us  was typically offered on a limited basis focused toward specific groups,  such as those likely to have media contact. Specifically:    At NASA, we estimate that three-quarters of researchers learned of their  agency’s dissemination policies through e-mails or other correspondence  from center or office managers, 70 percent through on-the-job training,  and about one-half through notifications on internal agency Web sites.  Managers and public affairs officials said that limited training on  dissemination of research through publications, presentations, and media  interviews is available. At most centers, managers said that training on the  publication and presentation review process is done on the job by  supervisors or managers, although some centers have conducted limited  formal training on how to comply with export control regulations, which  are a required segment of NASA’s scientific and technical review process.
Several NASA center public affairs officials said they have also conducted  limited formal training on media interviews, but this training was usually  targeted toward researchers who are expected to have significant  exposure to reporters. Headquarters and several center officials told us  that little or no formal training had been conducted on NASA’s recently  revised media policy.
At NIST, officials told us that they generally rely on the agency’s internal  Web site to inform employees about NIST’s publication and presentation  policies; however, they mentioned that more specific, individual training is  offered on an as-needed basis. Media and communications training  targeted toward researchers with high media exposure is offered  periodically, covering the approval processes for media interviews and  press releases. However, according to our survey estimates, nearly 80  percent of researchers received information about their agency’s policies  through on the job training, and nearly two-thirds learned about them  through e-mail communication from the agency. Additionally, about one- half of researchers at NIST learned of the dissemination policies through  notifications on internal agency Web sites or at staff or town-hall meetings;  and fewer (about 24 percent) attended formal training sessions to learn  about the policies.
At NOAA, researchers most often learned of the agency’s dissemination  policies through informal methods, such as e-mails or other  correspondence from center or office managers (75 percent), on-the-job  training (59 percent), and notifications on internal agency Web sites (37  percent). These sentiments were echoed by NOAA managers who told us  that they typically inform researchers about the agency’s policies on  dissemination of publications and presentations through on-the-job  training, on an as-needed basis. They added that researchers are usually  exposed to standard scientific peer review processes during graduate  school, and that these processes are similar to the agency’s review  processes. Regarding media interviews, at least one public affairs branch  office offered a formal training course that included an overview of NOAA  requirements in this area and offered advice on effectively communicating  with the media. According to program office officials, this training was  well received by those who participated.
Figure 2 shows the methods by which researchers at NASA, NIST, and  NOAA generally learned about their agency’s research dissemination  policies.

		Researchers Have More Concerns about Adhering to Their Agency’s Media Interview and Press Release Policies than to Their Publication and Presentation Policies

Most researchers at NASA, NIST, and NOAA feel confident that they know  how to comply with their agency’s policies for publications and  presentations, but many do not feel as confident that they know how to  comply with their agency’s policies on media interviews and press  releases. (See fig. 3.) According to our survey, we estimate that more than  80 percent of researchers at each agency are confident that they  understand their agency’s policies on publications and presentations well  enough to comply with them. At NIST, about three-quarters of researchers  are also confident that they know how to follow their agency’s policies on  media interviews and press releases. In contrast, nearly one-half of  researchers at NASA and over one-third of researchers at NOAA are not  confident that they understand their agency’s policies on media interviews  well enough to follow them, and 40 percent of NASA researchers and 35  percent of NOAA researchers are not confident they understand their  agency’s policies on press releases.

		Researchers Are Often Unclear about Whether They Can Discuss Research Results with Potential Policy Implications or Express Their Personal Views

Many researchers at NASA, NIST, and NOAA are unclear about whether  their agency allows them to discuss research results with policy  implications. This is particularly striking at NASA and NOAA, given that  the leaders of these two agencies have each assured their researchers that  they may discuss the policy implications of their research. When research  results are consistent with their agency’s policy or position statements, we  estimate that two-thirds of researchers across NASA, NIST, and NOAA  believe that they are allowed to discuss these potential policy implications.  However, when research results differ from their agency’s policy or  positions statements, 23 percent of researchers across all three agencies  believe they may not discuss those results, and 40 percent are not sure. In  addition, even though NASA’s recently revised media policy clearly states  that researchers are allowed to discuss conclusions drawn from their  work with the media as long as they disclose them as personal views and  not views of the agency, many researchers are unsure whether they are  allowed to discuss personal views related to potential policy implications  of their research results. On the basis of our survey, we estimate that only  one-half of researchers at NASA believe that they may make such  statements, and another 40 percent are not sure whether they can.
Unlike NASA researchers, researchers at NIST are not allowed to discuss  their personal views on the policy implications of their research, even if  they disclose that the views are their own and not those of their agency.  This is because NIST and Commerce policies state that when speaking  publicly on topics related to research conducted at the agency, it is not  realistic for a researcher to express personal views without the perception  that the employee is speaking on behalf of the agency. Nevertheless, we  estimate that 24 percent of researchers at NIST believe that they are free  to discuss potential policy implications of their research provided they  identify such views as their personal opinions and not those of the agency,  and 49 percent of researchers at NIST are not sure whether they can  discuss their personal views.
NOAA researchers, like NIST researchers, are also subject to Commerce’s  policy that restricts their ability to discuss their personal views. However,  in a February 2006 e-mail to NOAA employees, the NOAA Administrator  said that communicating personal views was allowed provided that the  researcher stated the views were the researcher’s opinion. Despite the  clarifying instruction from the administrator, we estimate that 42 percent  of NOAA researchers are uncertain whether they may discuss personal  views with the media, and another 40 percent believe they may do so if  they offer a disclaimer.

		Researchers Are Generally Unaware of Their Agencies’ Process for Appealing Dissemination Decisions

According to our survey, only 33 percent of NASA researchers, 26 percent  of NIST researchers, and 17 percent of NOAA researchers are aware of  their agencies’ processes to address disputes over dissemination requests.  Even at NASA, where officials told us that the agency rolled out its revised  media policy, which includes a dispute resolution process, with great  fanfare, we estimate that only one-third of researchers are aware of the  appeals process for dissemination of research. According to NASA  headquarters and center public affairs officials with whom we spoke, no  one, to date, has attempted to use the dispute resolution process for  media-related concerns. For other types of dissemination, such as through  publications, center managers generally told us that formal processes for  appeal did not exist; however, most managers said that a researcher would  likely raise concerns through the chain of command or rely on other  agency processes, such as those for personnel disputes. Most NASA center  managers told us that disputes over disseminating scientific and technical  information are rare, and some managers said that they had never needed  a formal process to resolve disputes.
NIST managers told us that the NIST technical review policy delineates a  process for appeals of dissemination decisions for publications and  presentations. However, according to our survey, we estimate that only 26  percent of researchers at NIST are aware that such an appeals process  existed. NIST officials said that no disputes over the dissemination of  information via publications had occurred in the past 5 years. Regarding  media contacts, Commerce officials said existing Commerce policies  include a process to handle disputes. However, these officials  acknowledged that the process may not have been clear to staff, and they  plan to clarify this process in future policies.
At NOAA, we estimate that 17 percent of researchers are aware of the  agency’s appeals process. NOAA managers told us that the agency’s  policies do not include an appeals process. The managers said that if a  dispute arose, they expect the researcher to appeal the decision through  the chain of command or use the agency’s alternative dispute resolution  process, which involves mediation of the dispute by a neutral third party,  often from another NOAA program office.

	Six Percent of Researchers at NASA, NIST, and NOAA Had Dissemination Requests Denied, and Many Believe That Their Agencies Are Less Supportive of Media Interviews than Other Dissemination Methods

On the basis of our survey, we estimate that across NASA, NIST, and  NOAA, 6 percent of researchers were denied the opportunity to  disseminate their research results in the past 5 years, sometimes, they  believe, without explanation. In general, however, most researchers at  these agencies believe that their agency either insists on or encourages  dissemination of research results. At the same time, significantly more  researchers at NASA, NIST, and NOAA believe that their agency supports  dissemination through publications and presentations rather than  interviews with the media. Finally, most researchers at NIST and NOAA  believe that their agencies consistently applied the dissemination policies  across all routes of dissemination. In contrast, many researchers at NASA  believe that policies for press releases and media interviews are not  applied as consistently as its policies for publications.

		Some Researchers at Each Agency Who Were Denied Approval to Disseminate Their Results Believe They Were Not Provided with an Adequate Explanation

Six percent of the approximately 5,000 researchers, or about 200, across  the three agencies have had their requests for dissemination denied for  reasons other than those stemming from standard technical review.  According to our survey, we estimate that 7 percent of NASA’s 1,794  researchers, 4 percent of NIST’s 1,337 researchers, and 6 percent of  NOAA’s 1,815 researchers have in the past 5 years been denied the  opportunity to disseminate their research. The denials involved a wide  range of research topics and occurred across all routes of dissemination,  within each NOAA branch office, and within nearly all of the NASA centers  and NIST laboratories included in our survey.
Researchers at each agency were given a variety of reasons for the denials,  but some indicated that they were given no reason. For NASA researchers,  representing a variety of areas, including aeronautics; biological or life  sciences; and climate, environment, or atmosphere research, among the  most common reasons reported for denials was that the information was  restricted or that the topic discussed or results presented were sensitive.  The subject of some restricted research involved government classified  information, or results that were covered by export control regulations.  For example, one researcher reported his request for dissemination of  research was denied because of restrictions on dissemination of high  frequency communications technology. As a result of agency denials, most  of these NASA researchers gave up trying to disseminate these particular  results, although some subsequently disseminated the results of their work  using a different dissemination route.
Researchers at NIST who had their requests denied also represented a  range of research areas, including information technology, electrical  engineering, and physical or chemical sciences. Many of these researchers  responded that they either were not given a reason for the denial or did  not know the reason. In these situations, most researchers either found  another route to disseminate these particular research results or gave up  trying. Other researchers who had requests denied at NIST reported that  the reasons given for the denial included that the results or topic was  sensitive or that there was a question about the scientific merit of the  results. In some of these cases, the researchers were able to disseminate  their results once they added a disclaimer that the opinions expressed in  the research results did not reflect the views of the agency.
At NOAA, researchers who had requests denied represented a diverse  cadre of research areas, including climate, environment, or atmosphere;  oceans and coasts; and fisheries and ecosystems. Among the most  common reasons that researchers reported for the denial of their requests  to disseminate research were that the topic or results were sensitive and  that resources, such as money for travel, were limited. For example, one  researcher reported that his request was denied because there was  concern that the results might be misinterpreted in light of recent  hurricane events. In addition, like NIST researchers, many NOAA  researchers reported that they were not given a reason for the denial or  did not know the reason. Those who indicated they were denied for  budgetary reasons had requested funding to travel to a conference, and  reported that after the denial they disseminated their work through  another route. Those who said their requests were denied because their  results were considered sensitive took various steps to obtain subsequent  approval to disseminate their results, including resubmitting the same or a  similar document or seeking an alternative dissemination route. Of the  researchers who either did not know the reason for denial or were not  given one, most gave up trying to disseminate these particular results.

		Researchers Believe That Their Agencies Provide Greater Support for Dissemination of Research through Publications and Presentations than through Press Releases and Media Interviews

While researchers at NASA, NIST, and NOAA believe that, overall, their  agencies support dissemination of research results, many believe that their  agency is more supportive of some dissemination routes than others. We  estimate that at least 85 percent of researchers at each agency believe that,  overall, their agency either encourages researchers to disseminate their  research results or insists that they do so. However, we also found that  researchers believe that their agency is more supportive of sharing results  within the scientific community through publications, such as peer- reviewed journals, and presentations, than sharing results with the general  public through media interviews or press releases. Specifically, we  estimate that 91 percent of researchers at NASA and NOAA and 97 percent  of researchers at NIST believe that their agency supports dissemination of  research results through publications. However, significantly fewer  researchers at each agency believe their agency supports dissemination  through press releases, ranging from 73 percent of researchers at NOAA to  87 percent at NIST. (See fig. 4.) Similarly, regarding dissemination through  media interviews, significantly fewer researchers, ranging from 54 percent  at NOAA to 68 percent at NIST, believe that their agency is supportive of  this dissemination route.
Researchers echoed these sentiments in their comments on ways the  dissemination of research results works well and how it could be  improved. Many researchers responded that agency support for  dissemination was good, particularly for scientific publications and  presentations, but could be improved for press releases and media  interviews. For example, one NIST researcher commented that the agency  has a strong cultural belief in the technical integrity of peer-reviewed  journals compared with general news media outlets. A NOAA researcher  said that although his division supported and encouraged original, cutting- edge research and dissemination through scientific literature, he did not  believe that NOAA or Commerce effectively disseminate research results  to the public or the Congress. Moreover, a representative of a NOAA  laboratory told us that although the laboratory issues over 100 peer- reviewed articles every year, only a few are publicized through press  releases. In addition, representatives of one NASA center believe that the  role of public affairs has shifted from help to hindrance, and that some  requests for press releases announcing contentious research results had  not been approved by headquarters, sometimes without explanation. In  addition, several agency managers told us that support for dissemination  depends on the tone set by senior managers. More specifically, one  manager said that without commitment and support from agency leaders,  even good policies will not ensure that important research gets  disseminated.

		Most Researchers Generally Believe That Dissemination Policies Are Consistently Applied

According to our survey, over 72 percent of researchers at NIST and  NOAA believe that their agency consistently applies its dissemination  policies across all dissemination routes. In contrast, more researchers at  NASA believe that the agency consistently applies its policies for  publications than believe the agency consistently applies its policies for  press releases and media interviews. We estimate that only 67 percent and  57 percent of researchers believe NASA consistently applies its press  release and media interview dissemination policies, respectively, as  opposed to 84 percent and 74 percent, respectively, of researchers who  believe the agency consistently applies its policy for publications and  presentations. (See fig. 5.)
In contrast, most researchers at NIST and NOAA believe their agencies  consistently apply all of their dissemination policies. According to our  survey, over 85 percent of the researchers within NIST and approximately  75 percent of the researchers at NOAA believe their agencies consistently  apply their dissemination policies for publications, presentations, press  releases, and media interviews.

	OSTP Provides Indirect Oversight of Agencies’ Dissemination Policies

According to OSTP, the office does not conduct any scientific research on  its own nor does it formulate or directly oversee the development of  dissemination policies or decisions at individual agencies. However, OSTP  told us that it has affirmed to agency leaders the value of science as the  basis for effective federal action and recognizes the importance of timely,  complete, and accurate communication of scientific information.  According to OSTP, the director of the office has on several occasions  asked the leaders and chief scientists of federal agencies to develop,  revise, or reemphasize their dissemination policies and to ensure that both  employees and managers understand their rights and obligations under the  policies. For example, in an April 2006 letter that transmitted copies of  NASA’s policy to agency chief scientists, the director praised NASA’s  media policy as a model and cited the Frequently Asked Questions  supplement as a best practice. In addition, according to OSTP, the director  instructed agencies that federal scientists, like federal employees  generally, are obliged to distinguish their personal views from the official  positions of their agencies but are in no way to be restricted in their ability  to openly communicate their scientific findings.
With regard to disseminating the results of interagency research, OSTP  sometimes plays a role in notifying agencies when research reports of  interest are published by another agency, and it will disseminate research  results to members of various National Science and Technology Council  committees, subcommittees, and working groups, according to OSTP  officials. For example, to ensure accuracy and readability, OSTP reviews  interagency reports on the scale, quality, and effectiveness of the federal  science and technology effort as well as all reports from interagency  working groups and task forces. In addition, OSTP may, at its own  initiative or in response to an agency’s request, review presentations  developed by individual agencies that are based on interagency reports.  According to OSTP, the office is part of the interagency review process  when federal scientists testify before Congress, and, accordingly, OSTP  officials review all of the statements prepared by federal scientists who  are testifying in their official capacities. Regarding presentations and  articles prepared by OSTP employees, OSTP officials told us that the office  has a process by which these presentations and articles are reviewed and  for making decisions about whether its employees can participate in  policy-related media interviews.
In discussing OSTP’s role with NASA, NIST, and NOAA public affairs  officials, we found that some of these agencies may inform OSTP of  certain dissemination events, but their policies do not call for routine  OSTP review or approval. For example, Commerce and NOAA public  affairs officials told us that OSTP often receives informational copies of  press releases that are particularly sensitive or involve regulatory issues.

	Conclusions

More and more of the major policy debates of the day hinge on the results  of scientific research. Therefore, timely and thorough dissemination of  research results within the research community and to the public at large  is crucial. To help ensure that this kind of dissemination is taking place,  NASA, NIST, and NOAA have each taken some steps to develop policies to  guide the dissemination of research through publications and  presentations for the scientific community. However, the lack of clarity  and consistency in the application of agency-level policies for requests to  disseminate research to the public through press releases and media  interviews continues to generate significant concern among some agency  researchers, such as those at NASA. For researchers at NIST and NOAA,  this situation is further exacerbated because they must comply with  Commerce’s outdated and unrealistic department-level policies, which can  further impede the dissemination of research results through media  interviews and press releases. Moreover, when disputes arise about an  agency’s decision regarding a dissemination request, few researchers are  aware of the dispute resolution processes that exist within their agency.  To some extent, this situation may have been partly caused by a lack of  formal training provided by the agencies on the dissemination and dispute  resolution policies to their research staff. Instead most researchers at  these agencies learn about their agency’s policies through informal means  and, therefore, are not particularly confident that they know how to  comply with all of them.

	Recommendations for Executive Action

To ensure that the policies to guide researchers and public affairs officials  in their efforts to disseminate research to the scientific community and the  public are clear, transparent, consistently applied, and completely  understood, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce and the  NOAA Administrator each take the following action:    Clarify their policies for disseminating research results via press releases  and media interviews.
To ensure that (1) researchers have a clear process to follow for appealing  decisions regarding dissemination of research results and (2) all  researchers are aware of and understand how to comply with their  agencies’ policies for disseminating research, we recommend that the  Secretary of Commerce, the NASA Administrator, the NIST Director, and  the NOAA Administrator each take the following two actions:    Review their dissemination policies and ensure that they clearly identify a  process by which researchers can appeal dissemination decisions.
Provide formal training to inform, reinforce, and update managers,  researchers, and public affairs staff on these policies.

	Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided Commerce, NASA, NIST, NOAA, and OSTP with a copy of  this report for review and comment. Commerce, on behalf of NIST, NOAA,  and itself, generally concurred with our findings and recommendations. In  its letter, Commerce noted that the draft report highlighted some ongoing  challenges for the department, NIST, and NOAA that they will address.  Furthermore, in an addendum from NOAA, the agency stated that it is  updating its public communications policies to ensure consistent  understanding by researchers and public affairs officials. In addition, NIST  suggested some technical changes that we have incorporated in this report  as appropriate. NASA also concurred with the recommendations we made  to the agency. In its letter, NASA stated that it plans to direct the Chief of  Strategic Communications and the Assistant Administrator for Public  Affairs to, among other things, review its current dissemination policies to  ensure they clearly identify a process for appealing dissemination  decisions and to provide biannual training to reinforce dissemination  guidelines. Finally, OSTP generally agreed with the report’s  recommendations made to Commerce, NASA, NIST, and NOAA. The office  commented that the report is fair and accurately describes OSTP and its  role in this area. The comment letters from Commerce, NASA, and OSTP  appear in appendixes III through V.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional  committees and Members of Congress, the Secretary of Commerce, the  NASA Administrator, the NIST Director, and the NOAA Administrator. We  also will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix VI.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives for this review were to (1) identify and evaluate the policies  that guide the dissemination of federal research results at the National  Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institute of  Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); (2) determine how effectively the  dissemination and dispute resolution policies of these agencies have been  communicated to researchers; (3) determine the extent to which  researchers at these agencies have experienced restrictions on the  dissemination of their research results, and (4) provide an overview of the  role of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in helping  agencies develop and implement policies related to the dissemination of  research results.
To identify and evaluate the policies that guide the dissemination of  federally funded research results at NASA, NIST, and NOAA, we obtained,  reviewed, and analyzed the dissemination policies for these agencies, in  addition to relevant policies from the Department of Commerce. In  addition, we spoke with managers and researchers at NASA, NIST, and  NOAA as well as public affairs officials at each of these agencies and  Commerce. Specifically, at NASA, we spoke with managers at each of nine  research, space, and space flight centers, public affairs officials from  NASA headquarters and the four largest centers in terms of researchers  who would be in a position to disseminate research, and the agency’s  Chief of Staff. At NIST, we spoke with agency officials, including the Chief  of Staff, the program office director, and the director of the public and  business affairs office. At NOAA, we spoke with managers in each of the  NOAA program offices, as well as each of the laboratories in the Oceanic  and Atmospheric Research program office and each of the National  Marine Fisheries Service fisheries science centers. We also spoke with  public affairs officials in each of the NOAA program offices. We followed a  standard set of questions for each of these interviews, confirmed that we  had copies of the relevant dissemination policies, and discussed at length  the ways in which these policies were put into practice.
To determine how effectively the dissemination and dispute resolution  policies have been communicated to researchers and to determine the  extent to which researchers at these agencies had experienced restrictions  on the dissemination of their research, we conducted a Web-based survey  of a stratified random sample of 1,811 researchers across scientific and  engineering disciplines at NASA, NIST, and NOAA. This sample included  578 NASA researchers, 699 NIST researchers, and 534 NOAA researchers.  We selected these researchers from among the 1,794 researchers at NASA,  1,337 researchers at NIST, and 1,815 researchers at NOAA. Overall, we  received a 66 percent response rate to our survey, for a total of 1,177  respondents. We stratified by agency subcomponent—such as the NASA  center, NIST laboratory, and NOAA program office—and produced  estimates at the agency level. Each subcomponent has a known nonzero  probability of being selected, and each subcomponent is weighted in the  analysis to account statistically for all subcomponents in the population,  including those that were not selected. We sought the researchers’ views  on their agency’s research dissemination policies, the level of agency  support for dissemination, and their experiences with dissemination. In  addition, we asked the researchers to provide examples of ways in which  dissemination of results works well and ways in which it could be  improved. We defined researchers to be included in our population as  federally employed scientists, engineers, or other researchers who are in a  position to disseminate their research results to a wider audience. To  identify these names, we asked center or program managers at NASA,  NIST, and NOAA to provide a list of researchers in their organization who  would meet our defined criterion. We cross-referenced this list with other  published lists of researchers in each facility, where available. We further  refined the list by sending out notification e-mails that allowed recipients  who did not meet our criteria to notify us prior to issuing the survey.
Information about accessing the survey was provided via e-mail for all  survey participants. The survey was activated, and researchers were  informed of its availability on November 16, 2006; it was available through  December 31, 2006. To ensure security and data integrity, we provided all  participants with a user name and a personal password that allowed them  to access and complete the survey. No one else could access that survey or  edit its data. To reduce survey nonresponse, we sent out e-mail reminder  messages and a contractor was used to make follow-up telephone calls to  all nonrespondants to encourage them to complete the survey. From the  initial notification, we identified 21 individuals who were outside the  target population. For example, some individuals had retired from the  agency. In all, we received a 66 percent response rate. Response rates for  our survey population by agency were as follows: NASA, 63.6 percent;  NIST, 61.5 percent; and NOAA, 73.7 percent.
All sample surveys are subject to sampling error—that is, the extent to  which the survey results differ from what would have been obtained if the  whole population had been observed. Measures of sampling error are  defined by two elements, the width of the confidence intervals around the  estimate (sometimes called the precision of the estimate) and the  confidence level at which the intervals are computed. Because we  followed a probability procedure based on random selections, our sample  is only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn.  Because each sample could have provided different estimates, we  expressed our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s  results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would  contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could  have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the  confidence intervals based on the survey includes the true values in the  sample population. Unless otherwise noted, all percentage estimates have  a 95 percent confidence interval within plus or minus 8 percentage points.  The 95 percent confidence intervals for numeric estimates are presented  along with those estimates in the body of the report. In addition, any  comparison between point estimates is statistically significant at the 0.05  level, unless otherwise noted. In some instances, we used general  modifiers (i.e., few, some, many, and most) to characterize percentage  point estimates or to indicate the number of center or office managers  who made a particular statement. We used the following method to assign  these modifiers to our statements: “few” represents less than 10 percent of  respondents or managers representing centers or offices, “some” or  “many” represents 10 to 50 percent of respondents or managers  representing centers or offices, and “most” represents over 50 percent of  respondents or managers representing centers or offices. These ranges do  not represent a standard; rather, we assigned these numeric ranges on the  basis of natural breaks in our data. In all cases where we use these  modifiers to characterize point estimates from our survey, their use  implies statistical significance. For example, where we use the term  “most,” the lower bound of the confidence interval of the point estimate is  greater than 50 percent.
Regarding the survey data on instances in which researchers were denied  the opportunity to disseminate, the percentage of researchers reporting  such instances can be generalized to the population. However, because the  number of denials is small, the details concerning the reason for denial,  the researcher’s primary field of research, and the actions taken in  response to the denial cannot be generalized. Because the issue of a  researcher being denied is a salient piece of our analysis, we included this  nongeneralizable information to provide context to this important issue.  To analyze select, open-ended questions on our survey, including those  given as the reason researchers said they were denied, we conducted a  content analysis to develop our agreement statistics. Reviewers (two per  question) collaboratively developed content categories based on survey  responses, and then independently assessed and coded each survey  response into those categories. Intercoder reliability (agreement) statistics  were electronically generated in the coding process, and agreement  statistics for all categories were 90 percent or above. Coding  disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion or a third-party  arbiter.
In addition to the reported sampling errors, as previously indicated, the  practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors,  commonly referred to as “nonsampling errors.” For example, differences  in how a particular question is interpreted, the information sources  available to respondents, or the types of sample members who do not  respond can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. Our  estimation method assumes that nonrespondents are missing at random. If  characteristics of respondents are different than nonrespondents on key  items, it could introduce a bias not accounted for in our analysis. We took  extensive steps in questionnaire development, data collection, and the  editing and analysis of the survey data to minimize nonsampling errors.  For example, the survey was developed by a GAO survey specialist in  conjunction with subject matter experts, and then reviewed by a second,  independent survey specialist. In addition, we pretested the survey by  telephone with researchers from all three agencies. During these pretests,  we asked each researcher to complete the survey as they would when they  received it. We then interviewed the respondents to ensure that (1) the  questions were clear and unambiguous, (2) the terms used were precise,  (3) the survey did not place an undue burden on the researchers  completing it, and (4) the survey was independent and unbiased. On the  basis of the feedback from the pretests, we revised the questions, as  appropriate. The SAS and SUDAAN programs that produced our survey  estimates, including estimates of categories derived from content analysis,  were reviewed by a second, independent programmer to ensure accuracy  in the logic and syntax of the program.
To determine OSTP’s role in helping agencies develop and implement  policies for the dissemination of research results, we submitted written  questions. They subsequently replied to these questions in writing.
We conducted our work from June 2006 through March 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Selected Survey Results for NASA, NIST, and NOAA

The following tables contain summary results of selected questions from  our survey of researchers at NASA, NIST, and NOAA. For each question  reported below, the estimated percentage is presented along with its 95  percent confidence interval. These tables do not include summary-level  data for the demographic questions and do not include the results from  any open-ended questions.
Q8. Overall, how familiar or unfamiliar are you with the policies that your agency currently has in place regarding the dissemination of  research results outside of the agency?
Q9. Has your agency used any of the following means to help you understand how to comply with its policies regarding the  dissemination of research results outside of the agency?  14.5-19.4 Q9. Has your agency used any of the following means to help you understand how to comply with its policies regarding the  dissemination of research results outside of the agency?  b. On-the-job training (including mentoring)
3.8-10.2 Q9. Has your agency used any of the following means to help you understand how to comply with its policies regarding the  dissemination of research results outside of the agency?
Q9. Has your agency used any of the following means to help you understand how to comply with its policies regarding the  dissemination of research results outside of the agency?  d. E-mails or other correspondence from  Administrator-level offices sent to all staff  10.5-19.6 Q9. Has your agency used any of the following means to help you understand how to comply with its policies regarding the  dissemination of research results outside of the agency?  e. E-mails or other correspondence from Center or Office management sent to all Center or Office staff  Q9. Has your agency used any of the following means to help you understand how to comply with its policies regarding the  dissemination of research results outside of the agency?  f. Notifications on internal agency websites  23.2-34.3 Q9. Has your agency used any of the following means to help you understand how to comply with its policies regarding the  dissemination of research results outside of the agency?
Q10. Overall, how effective or ineffective have your agency's efforts been to help you understand how to comply with its policies  regarding dissemination of research results though each of the following routes?   a. Publications (such as peer reviewed publications or non-peer reviewed publications)  4.4-8.9 Q10. Overall, how effective or ineffective have your agency's efforts been to help you understand how to comply with its policies  regarding dissemination of research results though each of the following routes?   b. Presentations (such as keynote addresses, conferences, workshops, symposia, professional society meetings, or Congressional  hearings)  12.6-22.0 Q10. Overall, how effective or ineffective have your agency’s efforts been to help you understand how to comply with its policies  regarding dissemination of research results though each of the following routes?   c. Agency releases (such as press releases, web posting on an agency website, or agency reports or fact sheets)
Q10. Overall, how effective or ineffective have your agency’s efforts been to help you understand how to comply with its policies  regarding dissemination of research results though each of the following routes?   21.6-33.2 Q10. Overall, how effective or ineffective have your agency’s efforts been to help you understand how to comply with its policies  regarding dissemination of research results though each of the following routes?   32.3-84.7 Q11. Regardless of how effective or ineffective your agency’s efforts have been, how confident, if at all, are you that you understand  your agency’s policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes well enough to follow them?
Q11. Regardless of how effective or ineffective your agency’s efforts have been, how confident, if at all, are you that you understand  your agency’s policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes well enough to follow them?   8.6-15.6 Q11. Regardless of how effective or ineffective your agency’s efforts have been, how confident, if at all, are you that you understand  your agency’s policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes well enough to follow them?   29.3-41.7 Q11. Regardless of how effective or ineffective your agency's efforts have been, how confident, if at all, are you that you understand  your agency’s policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes well enough to follow them?
Q11. Regardless of how effective or ineffective your agency’s efforts have been, how confident, if at all, are you that you understand  your agency’s policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes well enough to follow them?   33.7-89.7 Q12. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does your NASA Center, NIST Laboratory, or NOAA Branch/Line  Office apply its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes?  0.7-2.8 Q12. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does your NASA Center, NIST Laboratory, or NOAA Branch/Line  Office apply its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes?   7.6-13.4 Q12. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does your NASA Center, NIST Laboratory, or NOAA Branch/Line  Office apply its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes?   1.5-5.0 Q12. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does your NASA Center, NIST Laboratory, or NOAA Branch/Line  Office apply its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes?   4.3-10.1 Q12. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does your NASA Center, NIST Laboratory, or NOAA Branch/Line  Office apply its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes?   0.0  Q13. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does  as a whole apply its policies regarding the  dissemination of research results through each of the following routes?   0.5-2.6 Q13. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does  as a whole apply its policies regarding the  dissemination of research results through each of the following routes?   7.6-13.6 Q13. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does  as a whole apply its policies regarding the  dissemination of research results through each of the following routes?   2.7-7.6 Q13. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does  as a whole apply its policies regarding the  dissemination of research results through each of the following routes?   5.1-11.3 Q13. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does  as a whole apply its policies regarding the  dissemination of research results through each of the following routes?   35.4-89.0 Q14. Overall, do you believe your agency’s dissemination policies are effective or ineffective in ensuring access to the results of  research conducted at your agency?
Q15. How supportive, if at all, is your agency toward disseminating research results through each of the following routes?  a. Through publications such as peer reviewed journals, or non-peer reviewed journals  6.2-12.4 Q15. How supportive, if at all, is your agency toward disseminating research results through each of the following routes?  b. Through presentations, such as at conferences or at congressional hearings  7.0-14.9 Q15. How supportive, if at all, is your agency toward disseminating research results through each of the following routes?  c. Through agency releases, such as press releases, web postings, and agency reports and fact sheets  Q15. How supportive, if at all, is your agency toward disseminating research results through each of the following routes?  54.8-68.3 Q16. Overall, which one of the following statements best characterizes the extent to which your agency supports the dissemination of  research results?  0.2-2.7 Q17. Does your area of research have the potential to impact federal policy decisions?   10.6-18.7 Q18. When disseminating research results that have potential federal policy implications, does each of the following statements  correctly or not correctly represent your agency's position on discussing these research results?  a. I can discuss research results with potential policy implications when the results are consistent with the agency's policy or position  statements.  12.4-25.5 Q18. When disseminating research results that have potential federal policy implications, does each of the following statements  correctly or not correctly represent your agency's position on discussing these research results?  b. I can discuss research results with potential policy implications when the results differ from the agency's policy or position  statements.  32.8-48.9 Q18. When disseminating research results that have potential federal policy implications, does each of the following statements  correctly or not correctly represent your agency's position on discussing these research results?  c. I can discuss research results with potential policy implications on issues for which my agency does not have a policy or position  statement.  29.5-45.5 Q18. When disseminating research results that have potential federal policy implications, does each of the following statements  correctly or not correctly represent your agency's position on discussing these research results?  d. I can discuss potential policy implications of research results provided that I state the policy implications as my personal views and  not those of the agency.  34.1-50.3 Q18. When disseminating research results that have potential federal policy implications, does each of the following statements  correctly or not correctly represent your agency's position on discussing these research results?  e. I am not allowed to discuss the potential policy implications of research results.  30.7-47.4 Q19. In the past 5 years, have you sought to disseminate the results of your own scientific research outside of the agency?
Q20. Which of the following reasons describe why in the past 5 years you have not sought to disseminate the results of your scientific  research outside the agency?  a. I don’t conduct research that requires dissemination  63.9-87.0 Q20. Which of the following reasons describe why in the past 5 years you have not sought to disseminate the results of your scientific  research outside the agency  Q20. Which of the following reasons describe why in the past 5 years you have not sought to disseminate the results of your scientific  research outside the agency?  c. Someone else disseminates research results on my behalf  77.0-95.3 Q20. Which of the following reasons describe why in the past 5 years you have not sought to disseminate the results of your scientific  research outside the agency?  d. I sought to disseminate results in the past and was not allowed to  Q20. Which of the following reasons describe why in the past 5 years you have not sought to disseminate the results of your scientific  research outside the agency?  e. My research is ongoing and is not ready to be released  62.9-87.4 Q20. Which of the following reasons describe why in the past 5 years you have not sought to disseminate the results of your scientific  research outside the agency?  f. My research is not eligible for public dissemination  Q20. Which of the following reasons describe why in the past 5 years you have not sought to disseminate the results of your scientific  research outside the agency?  g. Agency policies did not allow me to disseminate  78.9-98.2 Q20. Which of the following reasons describe why in the past 5 years you have not sought to disseminate the results of your scientific  research outside the agency?
Q21. Over the past 5 years, through which methods did you seek to disseminate your research results?  a. Publications (such as peer reviewed publications or non-peer reviewed publications)  0.0  Q21. Over the past 5 years, through which methods did you seek to disseminate your research results?  b. Presentations (such as keynote addresses, conferences, workshops, symposia, professional society meetings, or Congressional  hearings)
Q21. Over the past 5 years, through which methods did you seek to disseminate your research results?  c. Agency releases (such as press releases, web posting on an agency website, or agency reports or fact sheets)  0.6-4.5 Q21. Over the past 5 years, through which methods did you seek to disseminate your research results?
Q21. Over the past 5 years, through which methods did you seek to disseminate your research results?  10.9-34.6 Q22. Other than for standard technical review reasons, over the past 5 years, have you ever encountered a situation when your agency  did not allow you to disseminate your research results?
Q23. Through which method(s) were you seeking to disseminate your research results when you were denied agency approval?  a. Publication (such as peer reviewed publications or non-peer reviewed publications)  36.2-86.9 Q23. Through which method(s) were you seeking to disseminate your research results when you were denied agency approval?  b. Presentations (such as keynote addresses, conferences, workshops, symposia, professional society meetings, or Congressional  hearings)
Q23. Through which method(s) were you seeking to disseminate your research results when you were denied agency approval?  c. Agency releases (including press releases, web posting on an agency website, or agency reports or fact sheets)  67.5-92.4 Q23. Through which method(s) were you seeking to disseminate your research results when you were denied agency approval?
Q23. Through which method(s) were you seeking to disseminate your research results when you were denied agency approval?  81.2-97.0 Q25. Did you take any of the following actions when you did not receive approval to disseminate your research results?  a. Appealed the decision using established procedures  Q25. Did you take any of the following actions when you did not receive approval to disseminate your research results?  13.2-66.2 Q25. Did you take any of the following actions when you did not receive approval to disseminate your research results?  c. Disseminated the results through a different route  Q25. Did you take any of the following actions when you did not receive approval to disseminate your research results?  d. Added a disclaimer that the opinions expressed in the research results do not reflect the views of the agency  74.8-99.1 Q25. Did you take any of the following actions when you did not receive approval to disseminate your research results?  e. Resubmitted the same or similar document  0.0  Q25. Did you take any of the following actions when you did not receive approval to disseminate your research results?
Q25. Did you take any of the following actions when you did not receive approval to disseminate your research results?  g. Received approval following other types of revisions - Please specify below.  0.8-16.8 Q25. Did you take any of the following actions when you did not receive approval to disseminate your research results?

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce

Appendix IV: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Appendix V: Comments from the Office of Science and Technology Policy

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact person named above, Cheryl Williams (Assistant  Director), Allen Chan, Nancy Crothers, Elizabeth Erdmann, Stuart  Kaufman, Matthew LaTour, Grant Mallie, Lisa Mirel, and Rebecca Shea  made key contributions to this report.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

Researchers at federal agencies disseminate their research results through a variety of approaches, including scientific publications, presentations, press releases, and media interviews. Because of recent concerns about some federal researchers possibly being restricted from disseminating their research on controversial topics, GAO determined (1) the policies that guide the dissemination of federal research at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); (2) how effectively these agencies have communicated their policies to researchers; and (3) the extent to which researchers have been restricted in disseminating their research. GAO conducted a survey of 1,811 researchers randomly selected at the three agencies, and had a 66 percent response rate.

What GAO Found

Most of the NASA, NIST, and NOAA policies that guide the dissemination of federally funded research generally facilitate the dissemination process, but some do not. GAO found that overall NASA's policies, including its recently revised media policy, are clear and should help facilitate dissemination regardless of the dissemination approach used. At NIST and NOAA, GAO found that the agencies' policies for dissemination through publications and presentations were generally clear and should facilitate dissemination; but their policies for disseminating research through media interviews and press releases may hinder it. For example, because both NIST and NOAA are part of Commerce, researchers at these agencies must comply with department-level policies to disseminate their research results through media interviews or press releases, but Commerce's policies are outdated and can prevent researchers from meeting media schedules. Moreover, requests by NOAA researchers to share their research via media interviews and press releases may be further hampered because these researchers must also comply with their own agency's media interview and press release policies in addition to the Department of Commerce's. NOAA officials told GAO that because its media interview and press release policies lack clarity, they have been inconsistently interpreted by NOAA public affairs officials. According to GAO's survey, NASA, NIST, and NOAA have made efforts to communicate their dissemination policies to their research staff, but many researchers are not confident that they know how to comply with some of the policies. The agencies have communicated their dissemination policies through staff meetings, on agency Web sites, and in limited formal training. While 90 percent of researchers are confident that they understand the policies for publications, only about 65 percent are confident they understand their agency's media interview and press release policies well enough to comply with them. Similarly, almost half of the researchers across the agencies are unsure whether their agency's policy allows them to discuss their personal views on the policy implications of their research. Finally, only 25 percent of researchers across the agencies are aware of a process to follow to appeal denials of requests to disseminate their research. On the basis of responses to GAO's survey, 6 percent--or about 200 researchers--across NASA, NIST, and NOAA had dissemination requests denied during the last 5 years. One of the most common reasons researchers mentioned for these denials was that the topic of the research was sensitive or restricted for security reasons; in some cases, no reason was given. Most researchers at these agencies believe that their agency is more supportive of dissemination of research through publications and presentations, than dissemination through the media. Most NIST and NOAA researchers believe that their agency consistently applies the dissemination policies for each route of dissemination, while more researchers at NASA believe the agency consistently applies its policies for publications than believe the agency consistently applies its policies for press releases and interviews.