Freedom of Speech in Government Science.

Since the early 1990s, researchers, scholars, journalists, and professional organizations have published hundreds of articles, books, and reports on the ethical problems related to industry-funded science, addressing such concerns as conflicts of interest, suppression of data and results, ghost authorship, and abuse of intellectual property laws. While the investigative spotlight has shined on privatized science in the last fifteen years, government science has received relatively little attention until recently. Three important publications—the Union of Concerned Scientists' report Scientific Integrity in Policy Making, Chris Mooney's book The Republican War on Science and Seth Shulman's book Undermining Science—have highlighted some of the ethical problems that can occur in government science, such as limitations on free speech, politicization of scientific advisory panels, conflicts of interest, and bias. According Mooney, President George W. Bush's administration has attempted to prevent government scientists from expressing their views about concerning global climate change. James E. Hansen, Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), said that public affairs staff members were reviewing his upcoming lectures, papers, media interviews, and web-postings. Hansen accused NASA administrators of trying to censor information that he planned to share with the public. NASA officials denied this accusation, claiming that Hansen's public statements were not given special scrutiny, since all NASA scientists must have their media interviews reviewed by public affairs staff members to ensure coordination with administration's policy statements. Hansen countered that the administration was trying to intimidate him, and that it had taken similar actions to prevent other researchers from communicating with the public about global warming. Other scientists working for the US federal government have also encountered problems with freedom of speech under the Bush administration. Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona told Congressional investigators that the federal officials weakened or suppressed public health reports to support a political agenda. He also said that the administration would not allow him to speak to the public about a number of different health policy issues, including stem cell research, emergency contraception, sex education, and global health. Administration officials have also written Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports on global warming for political purposes. Hansen's confrontation with Bush Administration officials raises important questions about the ethics of government science. Should scientists who work for the government have as much freedom of speech as academic scientists? What restrictions on speech, if any, can be applied to government science? This essay will address these questions and argue that government scientists should have freedom of speech but that the government may impose some restrictions on speech to ensure that research meets standards of quality and integrity and that policy messages conveyed to the public are consistent. However, any restrictions on speech must be applied carefully and cautiously, to avoid undermining government science. Freedom of speech is one of science's most important norms. Nineteenth century philosopher and economist, John Stuart Mill developed an influential account of the importance freedom of speech in public debate. According to Mill, social and scientific progress occurs through vigorous debate involving opposing points of view. To generate different points of view, people must have freedom of thought and speech. Progress cannot occur if the majority uses its power to suppress minority viewpoints. Many other scholars, such as Karl Popper, Paul Feyerabend, and Philip Kitcher, have developed arguments for freedom of speech in scientific inquiry similar to those found in Mill's work. Before discussing restrictions on freedom of speech in science, it will useful to distinguish between different types of limitations that the government might impose. Restrictions on funding are morally, legally, and politically different from restrictions on publication (which includes public discussion and dissemination). Restrictions on funding are unavoidable in societies where there is not enough money to fund every worthwhile project. Government agencies use peer review committees to decide which research proposals should be funded. Scientists who are denied funding by a federal agency are still free to conduct their research using funds from a different source, such as a private company, university, or private foundation. Restrictions on publication pose a more serious threat to freedom of speech, however. Denying a person the right to present his ideas in a public forum constitutes a significant interference with free speech, because publication is vital to science. Scientists require freedom of speech not just to discuss matters privately, but also to share ideas with their peers and the public at large. Since restrictions on publication can have a much more significant impact on research than restrictions on funding, this essay will focus on restrictions on publication. There are two basic models of freedom of speech in research: (1) the academic model and (2) the corporate/military model. In the US, scientists working for academic institutions have unsurpassed freedom of speech. In most colleges and universities scientists may publish articles or papers, express political opinions, discuss controversial ideas in classes, or talk to the media with very little administrative oversight or control. As long as they avoid slander, treason, fraud, sexual harassment or other illegal forms of speech, scientists working in academic institutions are free to say or write almost anything. Organizations that represent university professors, such as the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), have vigorously defended academic freedom. The AAUP helps professors who have some difficulties exercising their academic freedom, investigates institutions accused of interfering with academic freedom, and censures institutions that it determines have violated academic freedom. Not all researchers have as much freedom as those who work in academic institutions. Scientists who work for private industry also must deal with restrictions on communication. Companies treat all aspects of research and development (R & D) as confidential business information, which is protected by trade secrecy laws. They usually also require employees and contractors to sign agreements giving the company the right to own intellectual property and control publication of research results. Scientists who perform classified research for the government are not allowed to share their work with the public. US government agencies have the authority to classify information that poses a significant threat to national security. Access to classified information is granted only to people with an appropriate security clearance on a “need to know basis.” People who publicly disseminate classified research without permission can face substantial legal penalties.