NASA’s work is performed at 10 research and flight centers across the United States. Each of these centers conducts a variety of research, engineering, construction, and support functions related to the agency’s mission, and each has a separate management structure, including a Center Director, to guide its activities. Furthermore, each center has its own public affairs office responsible for managing its media contacts and communications. NASA’s Washington, D.C., headquarters provides overall guidance for each of the mission areas and public affairs oversight of agencywide programs and activities to coordinate and maintain communication channels to the news media and public. Federally employed NASA researchers must adhere to both agencywide and center-specific policies and procedures when disseminating information outside of the agency. The requirements for dissemination depend on the type of information to be released, the method used for dissemination, and the intended audience. NASA has (1) policies for disseminating scientific and technical information through presentations and publications to the scientific community and also (2) a media policy that governs the release of information to the general public through media interviews and press releases. Scientific and technical information—defined as the results of basic and applied scientific, technical, and related engineering research and development—is typically disseminated through NASA publications, outside journals, presentations at meetings or workshops, and Web sites. NASA’s policies for the dissemination of such research results establish a series of reviews to determine whether the information is suitable for public release based on national security or intellectual property concerns, is technically accurate, and meets data quality standards. NASA’s media policy governs the release of information about the agency’s activities and results to the general public through such methods as interviews, press releases, media advisories, news features, and Web postings. This policy specifically defines the roles and responsibilities of managers, researchers, and public affairs officials in deciding what information can be released. For example, the policy directs public affairs officials at both NASA headquarters and the relevant center to ensure the timely release of public information by obtaining review and clearance by appropriate officials. It also includes an appeals process for researchers to use when they disagree with the agency’s decision regarding whether to release information. In recent years, allegations have been made regarding interference with the efforts of NASA researchers to disseminate their research results to external audiences. A number of these concerns surrounded politically sensitive topics, such as climate change, where research was allegedly being suppressed. For example, in December 2005, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs denied a request from National Public Radio (NPR) to speak with a NASA scientist known for expertise on the subject of climate change. However, not long before NPR’s request for an interview, this scientist had delivered a presentation on climate change at a scientific conference, prompting concerns that the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs had improperly denied NPR’s interview request. The concerns over NASA’s alleged suppression of research resulted in reviews of the agency’s dissemination practices by the NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) in addition to our review in 2007. In June 2008, NASA’s OIG issued two reports on the dissemination of research results at NASA. Specifically, the OIG evaluated NASA’s process for reviewing, approving, and releasing research results and investigated allegations that NASA had suppressed the dissemination of climate change research and information through the media. In the first report, the OIG found that NASA’s guidance adequately defined the roles and responsibilities for the review, approval, and release of NASA research results through publications and presentations but that the guidance had not been effectively implemented at the four centers it reviewed—Goddard Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Center, Langley Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center. The OIG determined that, among other things, researchers were not always notified when the review process had been completed, and center management had not adequately informed researchers about the process to follow when they wanted to disseminate their research results through publications or presentations. While the OIG did not identify instances in which research results had been inappropriately released, it noted that the absence of timely notice to researchers regarding dissemination decisions increases the risk of releasing research results that should be restricted for export control, national security, or other reasons. Finally, the OIG surveyed researchers who had sought to disseminate their research results and found no evidence that NASA purposefully used the review process to suppress scientific research at those four centers. In its second report, the OIG found that during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public. The OIG found that the suppression of climate change research was localized within the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs and that senior NASA officials stated they were unaware of the situation until the allegations appeared in a national newspaper. According to the report, once NASA leadership was made aware of the suppression, it aggressively implemented corrective actions. For example, NASA revised its policy that governs dissemination of research results through the media and reaffirmed its policy that researchers may discuss their opinions on the implications of research results provided they attribute such views to themselves and not the agency. The OIG determined that the suppression had occurred, in part, because political appointees controlled key positions responsible for deciding which research results NASA would disseminate to the media. Since May 2007, NASA has changed some of its policies on the dissemination of research results through publications and presentations, and it has made a key leadership change in its main public affairs office to address allegations that an official in this office had played a key role in suppressing climate change science and media access to climate scientists in the past. Since 2007, NASA has made no changes to its policy on dissemination through news releases and media interviews. In late 2007 and early 2009, NASA changed one of its policies on dissemination of research results through publications and presentations. Specifically, in contrast to the policy in place prior to December 2007, the revised policy holds researchers responsible for ensuring that the results they seek to disseminate have been properly reviewed and approved prior to releasing them. In addition, the revised policy directs reviewing officials in the centers to include training in their efforts to ensure that NASA researchers are aware of the requirements and procedures for the review, approval, and dissemination of research results. In January 2009, in response to the OIG’s review of dissemination practices at four centers, NASA further revised this policy to strengthen the earlier changes by including additional responsibilities for officials in the centers and in NASA headquarters. For example, the revised policy directed center managers to (1) establish plans to ensure that researchers are aware of the review requirements, and (2) notify researchers in a timely manner whether their research has been approved or rejected for release. The revised policy also directed NASA officials responsible for overseeing the dissemination of research results to annually review the compliance of NASA’s centers with the updated policy, and evaluate the overall effectiveness of the agency’s review and approval process. As part of its efforts to ensure compliance by the centers with the revised policies, headquarters officials told us they have assessed compliance at the four centers reviewed by the OIG and, as of October 2009, are finalizing a report on their findings. These officials also said they will begin annual compliance reviews for all centers in 2010. In addition, NASA officials have taken steps to implement an automated system to enhance managers’ and researchers’ ability to monitor requests through the review and approval process. Specifically, during its review, the OIG found that managers who use paper-based systems were unable to readily determine when research may have been inappropriately released, whether requests had been denied, and how many requests were undergoing review. In fiscal year 2009, NASA approved funding to test an automated tracking system in two centers; the system is in operation at one of the centers, and is set to become operational at the other center early in fiscal year 2010. The use of such systems will be voluntary at other centers, since headquarters will provide only limited funding to maintain them. NASA officials told us that several centers have expressed interest in developing automated tracking systems but, as of October 2009, have not secured the necessary funding. Officials at the four centers reviewed by the OIG have also taken a number of steps to implement the policy changes made in 2007 and 2009. For example, all four centers reviewed their center-specific policies and procedures—which generally reinforce or elaborate on NASA-wide policies—and two centers revised their policies. For example, one center revised a flow chart contained in its procedures to more accurately reflect the center’s review and approval process. Centers have also taken steps toward establishing a process to ensure timely notification of researchers about dissemination decisions, according to NASA officials. Currently, some centers have electronic systems that provide notification automatically, while others provide notification through e-mails and telephone calls. NASA headquarters officials said that the automated tracking system, once implemented agencywide, would also help ensure that notification occurs in a timely manner at the conclusion of the review and approval process. Since 2007, NASA has not made any changes to its media policy, but in May 2007 it converted a key management position in the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs from a political appointment to a career civil service position. This change followed a management review—conducted in early 2006 by NASA’s leadership—of allegations that its Headquarters Office of Public Affairs had suppressed climate change science and denied media access to scientists in 2004 and 2005. In a June 2008 report on these concerns, the OIG concluded that inappropriate political posturing was the proximate cause of at least some of these actions and that a political appointee who was the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs at the time of the alleged suppression was a central figure in the allegations of censorship and denial of media access. According to the OIG report, NASA intended that the conversion of the position to a career civil service position would facilitate communications within the Headquarters Office, where the suppression of information had been localized. NASA officials told us that the agency placed a career civil servant in the position after the incumbent political appointee, who had held the position during the time that climate science had been suppressed, left NASA. The career civil servant took over the position in May 2007. Although NASA has taken some steps to increase researchers’ awareness of its dissemination policies, our survey results in 2009 indicate that while most researchers are familiar with the dissemination policies, fewer researchers were familiar with them than in 2007, and slightly fewer were confident they understood the policies well enough to follow them. However, most researchers reaffirmed their belief that NASA’s policies effectively ensure access to research results and that the agency’s efforts to help them understand the various dissemination policies are generally effective. In response to a review by its OIG, NASA tasked headquarters officials responsible for oversight of dissemination of research results through publications and presentations with ensuring that NASA researchers are aware of the agency’s review and approval requirements. However, as of October 2009, headquarters officials said they have relied on the centers to create and implement plans to increase awareness. Thus far, officials at some centers have taken actions to increase researchers’ awareness of the requirements for review, such as sending a center-wide e-mail emphasizing the importance of completing the review process prior to releasing research results and increasing outreach to researchers who work in areas that produce significant amounts of research. According to NASA headquarters officials, they may take additional steps in the future to increase awareness, such as having the centers include information on the review and approval process in their new employee orientation programs. NASA has also taken steps since 2007 in response to our report to help raise awareness of its media policy. Specifically, in May 2007 we recommended that NASA provide formal training to inform, reinforce, and update managers, researchers, and public affairs staff on dissemination policies. As a result of our recommendations, NASA undertook a number of formal training activities with regard to its media policy. Specifically, a senior public affairs official conducted presentations at each of the centers regarding the media policy. As part of these meetings, officials presented an overview of the policy, answered questions from employees, and distributed copies of the policy to each public affairs officer and to senior managers. In December 2007, NASA distributed materials on the policy to public affairs staff and discussed the policy in meetings that included headquarters and center public affairs officials. Finally, a discussion of the media policy was incorporated into the orientation for new public affairs officers. Results from both surveys, as well as agency officials we spoke with, indicated that most NASA researchers receive information about dissemination policies through means other than formal training, although fewer researchers said in 2009 that they learn about policies through e- mails from center and NASA managers and more said they had received formal training. Our 2009 survey results show that researchers get information through a variety of methods, most commonly through on-the- job training (about 70 percent) and e-mails or other correspondence from center managers to all center staff (68 percent). Additionally, more than half of researchers cited Administrator-level e-mails or correspondence sent to all NASA staff. Although e-mails from both center and Administrator-level management represent the second and third most common method of receiving information about NASA policies, about 10 percent fewer researchers cited these in 2009 than in 2007. Furthermore, roughly half of researchers in both surveys responded that they learned about policies through notifications on intranet sites and staff or town hall meetings. Finally, in 2009 more researchers reported learning about dissemination policies through formal training—42 percent compared with 32 percent in 2007. These results appear consistent with the fact that NASA headquarters and public affairs officials told us that the agency largely relies on methods other than formal training to inform staff about the media policy and appeals process. Although our surveys from 2007 and 2009 indicate that about 90 percent of researchers are familiar with NASA’s dissemination policies, fewer researchers in 2009 compared with 2007 said they are very or moderately familiar with NASA’s dissemination policies. Specifically, according to our 2009 survey results, 87 percent of researchers were very or moderately familiar with NASA’s dissemination policies, compared with 92 percent in 2007. See figure 1. From 2007 to 2009, we also found a small decline in the percentage of researchers who said they were very or moderately confident that they understood the policies for dissemination of research results through publications and presentations well enough to follow them (about 85 percent in 2009 compared with about 90 percent in 2007). Similarly, a small decline occurred in the percentage of researchers who were very or moderately confident they understood the policies related to agency releases (55 percent in 2009 compared with 61 percent in 2007). We found no change in the confidence researchers have about their understanding of the policies related to media interviews. See figure 2. As would be expected, those researchers who thought NASA’s efforts to educate them about dissemination policies were extremely to moderately effective were more likely to feel confident that they understood the policies than those who thought the agency’s efforts were less effective. For example, 76 percent of researchers who reported being very to moderately confident that they understood the dissemination policies related to media interviews also responded that NASA’s efforts to educate them about these policies were extremely to moderately effective. In contrast, 17 percent of researchers who reported being very to moderately confident about how to apply the policies for dissemination through media interviews also responded that NASA’s efforts to educate them about these policies were slightly to not at all effective. In addition, researchers who said they had tried to disseminate their results in the past 5 years were more likely than other researchers to be confident that they understood the policies related to the dissemination route they used. For example, 69 percent of researchers who sought to disseminate research results through agency releases in the past 5 years were very or moderately confident that they understand NASA’s policies for dissemination through agency releases, whereas 55 percent of all researchers, regardless of whether they had sought to use agency releases, reported being very or moderately confident they understand dissemination policies related to agency releases. Our 2007 and 2009 surveys also indicate that many researchers remain unclear about when they may discuss research results that have potential policy implications. Specifically, according to our 2009 survey, when research results are consistent with NASA’s policy, 66 percent of researchers believe they are allowed to discuss the results, while 15 percent believe they may not, and 19 percent were uncertain. However, fewer researchers believe they may discuss research results when the results differ from NASA’s policy. Specifically, 43 percent believe they may discuss such results, 19 percent believe they may not, and 38 percent were uncertain. Additionally, just over half of researchers (54 percent) believe they may discuss their personal views related to research results that have potential policy implications, while 13 percent believe they may not and 34 percent were uncertain. This uncertainty about discussing research results and expressing personal views exists despite clear statements in NASA’s revised media policy that employees may discuss their results and express personal views as long as they attribute such views to themselves and not the agency. In our 2007 and 2009 surveys, almost 90 percent of researchers reported that overall the agency’s policies are extremely to moderately effective in ensuring access to research results. In addition, over 85 percent of researchers believed NASA’s efforts to inform them about policies for dissemination through publications and presentations were extremely to moderately effective, and about 68 percent reported the same regarding media interviews. However, in 2009, fewer researchers believed that NASA’s efforts to inform them about the policies for disseminating research through agency releases were extremely to moderately effective (72 percent said so in 2009 compared with 81 percent in 2007). See figure 3. NASA has not adopted any new processes or procedures since 2007 for researchers to use if they wish to appeal decisions regarding their requests to disseminate their research results. Nevertheless, we found in 2009, relatively few NASA researchers are aware of and familiar with the agency’s process to appeal dissemination decisions. In addition, fewer researchers said they had sought to disseminate their research results in the past 5 years, and more said their requests to disseminate research results had been denied. However, most NASA researchers continue to believe that the agency supports the dissemination of research results and that NASA and its centers apply policies for all routes of dissemination consistently. NASA has not adopted any new processes or procedures since 2007 for researchers to use if they wish to appeal decisions regarding their requests to disseminate their research results. As in 2007, researchers may follow the appeals process outlined in NASA’s media policy if they wish to appeal a decision about dissemination through press releases and interviews. For other types of dissemination, such as through publications and presentations, there is no formal appeals process, although officials told us that researchers may raise concerns through their supervisors or through other agency dispute resolution processes, such as those for personnel disputes. These officials also said they are not aware of any disputes regarding decisions to release research results to the media and thus have not used the appeals process described in the policy. For other types of dissemination, such as through publications and presentations, for which there is no appeals process, most NASA center managers told us that disputes over disseminating research results are rare, and some managers said they have never needed a formal process to resolve disputes. Nonetheless, our 2009 survey shows that, as in 2007, about one-third of NASA researchers reported that they were aware of NASA’s process to appeal decisions about dissemination of research results, but only 8 percent responded that they were familiar with the process. About 60 percent of the 8 percent of researchers who were both aware of and familiar with the appeals process reported that it was extremely to very effective. In both 2007 and 2009, about 20 percent of researchers reported that they had appealed decisions when their requests to disseminate research results were denied. According to our 2009 survey, fewer researchers have tried to disseminate their research results than in 2007, and more researchers have had their requests to disseminate denied. Specifically, there was an 8 percentage point decline in the number of researchers who responded that they tried to disseminate their research results outside of NASA in the last 5 years (83 percent in 2009 compared with 91 percent in 2007). Researchers in 2009 largely sought to disseminate their research results through the same routes—presentations, publications, agency releases, and media interviews—as did researchers in 2007. However, fewer sought to disseminate their results through agency releases. See figure 4. According to our survey results, more researchers in 2009 had their requests to disseminate research results denied for reasons other than those stemming from standard technical reviews (about 12 percent of researchers in 2009, compared with about 7 percent in 2007). Most researchers whose requests had been denied were seeking to disseminate research results through publications and presentations, as we found in 2007. Also, as in 2007, researchers took various actions in response to a denial. While more than half of researchers gave up on efforts to disseminate, many others successfully disseminated their research results by making revisions that led to approval or by using a different dissemination route. Researchers commented that they received a variety of reasons for the denials, although some indicated they were given no reason. As in 2007, among the most common reasons reported for denials was that the research was restricted for national security or other reasons or that the topic or results were sensitive. Another commonly cited reason was the lack of funding to attend conferences. Some researchers specifically mentioned the restrictions on NASA’s spending related to conferences—a key venue for presenting research results—contained in the NASA Authorization Act of 2008. The act authorized $5 million for conference- related expenses in fiscal year 2009, a reduction of over two-thirds from the previous fiscal year. Subsequently, in March 2009, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 clarified that the restrictions did not apply to scientific or technical conferences and other conferences at which NASA science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are disseminated. According to NASA officials, the spending limitation prevented many researchers from disseminating their research results because decisions about conference attendance are typically made early in a fiscal year. One NASA official estimates that only one-third of NASA-funded research was presented to the scientific community in 2009. As in 2007, most researchers believe that NASA is very to moderately supportive of disseminating research results but that the agency is more supportive of some dissemination routes than others. We estimate that 85 percent of researchers in 2009, compared with 89 percent in 2007, believe that NASA either insists on or encourages the dissemination of research results. When comparing 2007 and 2009 survey results for specific dissemination routes, we found that fewer researchers now believe that NASA is very to moderately supportive of dissemination through presentations—92 percent of researchers said this in 2007 compared with 84 percent in 2009. While we cannot be certain of the reasons for this decline, they may also be related to the limitation on conference attendance in 2009 mentioned earlier. We also found a slight increase in the percentage of researchers who believe NASA is very to moderately supportive of dissemination through media interviews. Specifically, we estimate that 68 percent of researchers in 2009 believe that NASA is supportive of dissemination through media interviews compared with 62 percent of researchers in 2007. We also found a slight decrease in the percentage of researchers who believe NASA is very to moderately supportive of dissemination through publications—89 percent in 2009 compared with 91 percent 2007. See figure 5. In comparing the 2009 and 2007 survey results, we also found that, in general, researchers believe that both the centers and NASA as a whole apply dissemination policies very to somewhat consistently. However, a greater number of researchers now believe the centers more consistently apply policies for dissemination through agency releases (83 percent in 2009 compared with 71 percent in 2007) and media interviews (77 percent in 2009 compared with 62 percent in 2007). In addition, more researchers in 2009 believe that NASA consistently applies policies for media interviews (68 percent compared with 57 percent). We also found an increase that approaches statistical significance in the percentage of researchers in 2009 who believe NASA consistently applies policies for dissemination through agency releases (74 percent compared with 67 percent). Our 2009 survey results indicate that researchers believe, across all dissemination routes, that the centers more consistently apply dissemination policies than NASA as a whole. Specifically, we estimate on the basis of the 2009 survey results that 88 percent of researchers believe their centers consistently apply policies related to publications and 81 percent believe their centers consistently apply policies related to presentations. In contrast, 79 and 73 percent of researchers believe NASA as a whole consistently applies publication and presentation policies, respectively. Further, 83 percent of researchers believe their centers consistently apply policies related to agency releases, and 77 percent believe their centers consistently apply policies related to media interviews, whereas fewer believe NASA as a whole consistently applies policies related to agency releases and media interviews—74 and 68 percent, respectively. Scientific research is critical to the ability of NASA and other agencies to achieve their missions and is at the heart of many major policy decisions that agencies face. Open communication and exchanging of research results contribute to advances in the state of scientific knowledge and a well-informed public. In 2007, while we found that NASA’s policies were generally clear, we also raised a number of concerns, including that many NASA researchers did not understand the full range of the agency’s policies and were generally unaware of NASA’s policy for appealing dissemination decisions. In response, NASA undertook various efforts to increase the awareness of researchers about its media policy. These efforts appear to have achieved some success because, as our survey indicates, more researchers now believe that NASA is supportive of dissemination through media interviews. In addition, more researchers today believe that NASA and the centers consistently apply policies for dissemination through agency releases and media interviews, and researchers generally rate NASA’s efforts to help them understand the policies as effective. However, with regard to dissemination through publications and presentations, we found that fewer researchers are confident they understand the policies well enough to apply them, and fewer believe that NASA is supportive of using these routes to disseminate research results. Finally, now, as in 2007, very few researchers are familiar with how to appeal decisions made in regard to their requests to disseminate their research results, and about half of those who had their requests denied gave up trying to disseminate their results. We are concerned that this may inhibit the full range of scientific research from being shared with the scientific community and the public. To strengthen NASA’s efforts to better inform its researchers and ensure that the policies guiding researchers and public affairs officials in their efforts to disseminate research results to other scientists and the public are well understood, we recommend that the NASA Administrator direct officials responsible for dissemination of research results through all routes to include in their efforts to inform researchers a focus on the processes researchers are to follow when they wish to appeal decisions. We provided the NASA with a draft of this report for their review and comment. NASA concurred with our recommendation and stated that the NASA Administrator will direct the appropriate NASA officials, including the Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs, to work with the appropriate NASA entities to review the agency’s dissemination policies and provide appropriate education and training for researchers to ensure they clearly understand the processes for appealing dissemination decisions. The comment letter from NASA is presented in appendix III. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Administrator of NASA, and other interested parties. The report also will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any 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. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Authorization Act of 2008 directed GAO to determine whether NASA is implementing the regulations governing the dissemination of research in a clear and consistent manner. In response, this report discusses (1) what changes, if any, have been made since 2007 to the policies that guide the dissemination of federally funded research results at NASA; (2) the extent to which NASA researchers believe that the agency’s dissemination policies have been more effectively communicated since 2007 and what their experiences have been in using the process; and (3) what processes, if any, NASA has adopted since 2007 for researchers to follow if they have concerns about decisions regarding the dissemination of their research results and how those concerns have been addressed. To identify and evaluate what changes have been made since 2007 to NASA’s policies that guide the dissemination of federally funded research results, we obtained, reviewed, and analyzed the agency’s dissemination policies, and compared them to prior policies. In addition, we contacted managers and public affairs officials who are responsible for dissemination of research results at NASA headquarters and at each of 10 research, space, and space flight centers. We used a standard set of questions to ensure we obtained consistent information, confirmed that we had copies of the relevant dissemination policies, and discussed at length the ways in which these policies had changed since 2007 and how these policies were put into practice. We also included questions about what processes NASA has adopted since 2007 for researchers to follow if they have concerns about decisions regarding the dissemination of their research results. To identify to what extent NASA researchers believe that the agency’s dissemination policies have been more effectively communicated since 2007 and what their experiences have been in using the process for disseminating their research results and how their concerns about dissemination decisions have been addressed, we sent a Web-based survey to all 2,790 researchers at NASA. This survey instrument was in large part identical to the one used as the basis for GAO’S May 2007 report on policies guiding dissemination of scientific research at NASA, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We sought the NASA researchers’ views on their agency’s research dissemination policies, the level of agency support for dissemination, and their experiences with dissemination. 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. We included researchers from 9 of the 10 NASA centers and excluded the Jet Propulsion Laboratory from our review because contract researchers primarily perform research at this center and NASA does not maintain a database that contains the names of individual contract researchers. In addition, contract researchers might charge NASA for costs related to participating in the survey. To identify researchers for our survey, we obtained from center or program managers at NASA a list of researchers in their organization who would meet our defined criterion. To mitigate the risk that NASA center and program managers may not have provided the complete universe of relevant researchers, we interviewed NASA public affairs and scientific officials to identify the key characteristics of individuals in a position to disseminate research. We then obtained from NASA’s Office of Human Capital a list, broken out by center, of offices that employed researchers who met these key characteristics. NASA obtained this information from the Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS) Datamart, which is the official data source for personnel and payroll information on NASA civil service employees. To assess the reliability of the information in this database for the purposes of our report, we submitted a set of questions to NASA related to how the data are managed and maintained. On the basis of NASA’s responses to these questions, we determined that the data are adequate to identify offices within NASA that employ researchers who meet the key characteristics. After obtaining the list of offices from NASA, we asked officials at each center to verify that they had considered all the program offices on the list when they developed their original list of researchers and, if not, we asked them to contact those offices to determine if any researcher names should be added to our survey universe. 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 July 14, 2009; it was available thorough September 18, 2009. To ensure security and data integrity, we provided all participants with user names and personal passwords that allowed them to access and complete the survey. To reduce survey nonresponse, we sent out multiple e-mail reminder messages and conducted follow-up telephone calls to all nonrespondents to encourage them to complete the survey. From initial notification, we identified 379 individuals who were outside the target population. For example, some individuals had retired from the agency. In all, we received a 57.5 percent response rate. We compared the respondents with nonrespondents on available administrative data, such as the center where they work, but did not find any significant differences on the available variables. Although our survey was intended to be a census, for the purposes of analyzing the results, we decided to treat our survey as a random sample. Specifically, we took the response rate within each of the 9 NASA centers and used this to derive a statistical weight. We applied statistical weight to the respondents so that their answers would represent the population. This requires the assumption that the nonrespondents are missing at random. 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 treated our survey as a stratified random sample, we assumed our sample was only one of a large number that could have been 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. The 95 percent confidence intervals for numeric estimates are presented along with those estimates in the body of the report. Unless otherwise noted, any comparisons between point estimates for 2009 have a 95 percent level of confidence of plus or minus 4 percentage points. In addition to sampling errors, 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. We assumed that the propensity to respond to our survey did not depend upon the questions we asked, and we assumed that the respondents were statistically similar to the nonrespondents. If characteristics of respondents are different from those of 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. This survey instrument was in large part identical to the one used as the basis for GAO’S May 2007 report on policies guiding dissemination of scientific research at three agencies, including NASA. The 2007 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 NASA. During these pretests, we asked the researchers 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 we 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. In making minor revisions to the 2007 survey to make it acceptable for the 2009 survey, we also worked with survey specialists, who determined that the changes made would not require additional pretesting. The SAS and SUDAN programs that produced the 2009 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. 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. We conducted this performance audit from January 2009 through December 2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. The following tables contain summary results of selected questions from our survey of researchers at NASA in 2009. 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 NASA has in place regarding the dissemination of research results outside of the agency? Q9. Has NASA 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 NASA 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) 4.2-5.6 Q9. Has NASA 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 NASA 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 Q9. Has NASA 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 management sent to all center or office staff Q9. Has NASA 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? 29.8-32.8 Q9. Has NASA 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 NASA’s efforts been to help you understand how to comply with its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes? a. Publications (such as peer-reviewed publications or non-peer-reviewed publications) Q10. Overall, how effective or ineffective have NASA’s efforts been to help you understand how to comply with its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes? b. Presentations (such as keynote addresses, conferences, workshops, symposia, professional society meetings, or congressional hearings) Q10. Overall, how effective or ineffective have NASA’s efforts been to help you understand how to comply with its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes? c. Agency releases (such as press releases, posting on an agency intranet site, or agency reports or fact sheets) 26.4-29.9 Q10. Overall, how effective or ineffective have NASA’s efforts been to help you understand how to comply with its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes? Q10. Overall, how effective or ineffective have NASA’s efforts been to help you understand how to comply with its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes? Q11. Regardless of how effective or ineffective NASA’s efforts have been, how confident, if at all, are you that you understand the 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 NASA’s efforts have been, how confident, if at all, are you that you understand the agency’s policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes well enough to follow them? 13.6-15.9 Q11. Regardless of how effective or ineffective NASA’s efforts have been, how confident, if at all, are you that you understand the 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 NASA’s efforts have been, how confident, if at all, are you that you understand the 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 NASA’s efforts have been, how confident, if at all, are you that you understand the agency’s policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes well enough to follow them? Q12. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does your NASA Center apply its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes? 6.4-8.2 Q12. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does your NASA Center apply its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes? Q12. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does your NASA Center apply its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes? Q12. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does your NASA Center apply its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes? Q12. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does your NASA Center apply its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes? 23.7-44.3 Q13. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does NASA as a whole apply its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes? Q13. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does NASA as a whole apply its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes? Q13. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does NASA as a whole apply its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes? Q13. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does NASA as a whole apply its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes? 14.5-18.4 Q13. Overall, in your opinion, how consistently or inconsistently does NASA as a whole apply its policies regarding the dissemination of research results through each of the following routes? Q14. Overall, do you believe NASA’s dissemination policies are effective or ineffective in ensuring access to the results of research conducted at the agency? Q15. How supportive, if at all, is NASA toward dissemination research results through each of the following routes? a. Through publications, such as peer-reviewed journals or non-peer-reviewed journals Q15. How supportive, if at all, is NASA toward dissemination research results through each of the following routes? b. Through presentations, such as at conferences or at congressional hearings Q15. How supportive, if at all, is NASA toward dissemination research results through each of the following routes? c. Through agency releases, such as press releases, posting on an agency intranet site, or agency reports or fact sheets 20.5-23.9 Q15. How supportive, if at all, is NASA toward dissemination research results through each of the following routes? Q16. Overall, which of the following statements best characterizes the extent to which NASA supports the dissemination of research results? NASA insists or encourages dissemination NASA neither insists or encourages dissemination NASA discourages or does not allow dissemination Q17. Does your area of research have the potential to affect federal policy decisions? Q18. When disseminating research results that have potential federal policy implications, does each of the following statements correctly or not correctly represent NASA’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. 16.5-21.4 Q18. When disseminating research results that have potential federal policy implications, does each of the following statements correctly or not correctly represent NASA’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. Q18. When disseminating research results that have potential federal policy implications, does each of the following statements correctly or not correctly represent NASA’s position on discussing these research results? c. I can discuss research results with potential policy implications on issues for which the agency does not have a policy or position statement. Q18. When disseminating research results that have potential federal policy implications, does each of the following statements correctly or not correctly represent NASA’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. Q18. When disseminating research results that have potential federal policy implications, does each of the following statements correctly or not correctly represent NASA’s position on discussing these research results? e. I am not allowed to discuss the potential policy implications of research results. 28.5-34.3 Q19. In the past 5 years, have you sought to disseminate the results of your own scientific research outside of NASA? 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 of the agency? 1. I don’t conduct research that requires 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 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 of the agency? 3. Someone else disseminates research results on my behalf. 86.8-92.0 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 of the agency? 4. 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 of the agency? 5. My research is ongoing and is not ready to be released. 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 of the agency? 6. 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 of the agency? 7. Agency policies did not allow me to disseminate. 96.6-99.1 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 of 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) Q21. Over the past 5 years, through which methods did you seek to disseminate your research results? c. Agency releases (such as press releases, posting on an agency intranet site, or agency reports or fact sheets) 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? Q22. Other than for standard technical review reasons, over the past 5 years, have you ever encountered a situation when NASA did not allow you to disseminate your research results? 87.0-89.3 Q23. Through which method(s) were you seeking to disseminate your research results when you were denied agency approval? a. Publications (such as peer-reviewed publications or non-peer-reviewed publications) (If Question 19 is Yes and Question 22 is Yes) 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) (If Question 19 is Yes and Question 22 is Yes) Q23. Through which method(s) were you seeking to disseminate your research results when you were denied agency approval? c. Agency releases (such as press releases, posting on an agency intranet site, or agency reports or fact sheets) (If Question 19 is Yes and Question 22 is Yes) Q23. Through which method(s) were you seeking to disseminate your research results when you were denied agency approval? (If Question 19 is Yes and Question 22 is Yes) 93.4-97.3 Q23. Through which method(s) were you seeking to disseminate your research results when you were denied agency approval? (If Question 19 is Yes and Question 22 is Yes) Q25. Did you take any of the following actions when you did not receive approval to disseminate your research results? a. Appealed the decisions using established procedures. (If Question 19 is Yes and Question 22 is Yes) Q25. Did you take any of the following actions when you did not receive approval to disseminate your research results? (If Question 19 is Yes and Question 22 is Yes) 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. (If Question 19 is Yes and Question 22 is Yes) 1.4-5.1 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. (If Question 19 is Yes and Question 22 is Yes) 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. (If Question 19 is Yes and Question 22 is Yes) Q25. Did you take any of the following actions when you did not receive approval to disseminate your research results? (If Question 19 is Yes and Question 22 is Yes) 1.4-5.8 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. (If Question 19 is Yes and Question 22 is Yes) Q25. Did you take any of the following actions when you did not receive approval to disseminate your research results? (If Question 19 is Yes and Question 22 is Yes) Q26. To the best of your knowledge, does NASA have a process or procedure in place to appeal decisions made regarding the dissemination of research results? In addition to the contact person named above, Cheryl Williams (Assistant Director), Carl Barden, Laura Erion, Richard Johnson, Amanda Miller, Ben N. Shouse, Lisa Turner, Fatema Wachob, and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report.

Summary: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) researchers generally disseminate their agency-funded research results through publications, presentations, agency releases, and media interviews. In 2007, GAO reviewed dissemination policies at NASA and two other agencies and found that NASA's policies were generally clear, but GAO's survey of NASA researchers raised concerns that many of them did not understand some of the policies and were generally unaware of how to appeal dissemination decisions. Congress in 2008 directed GAO to determine whether NASA is implementing its policies in a clear and consistent manner. To meet that requirement, GAO determined (1) what changes have been made to NASA's policies since 2007, (2) the views of NASA researchers on whether the policies have been more effectively communicated since 2007, and (3) what changes have occurred since 2007 in NASA's processes for researchers to follow if they wish to appeal decisions about the dissemination of their research results. GAO conducted a Web-based survey of all 2,790 NASA researchers and had a 57.5 percent response rate. Since May 2007, NASA has changed some of its policies on the dissemination of research results through publications and presentations, but has not changed its policy on dissemination through news releases and media interviews, although it has made a key leadership change in its main public affairs office. Regarding its policies for dissemination through publications and presentations, in 2007 and 2009, NASA clarified the roles and responsibilities of officials who participate in the review and approval process that is required before agency-funded research is released. The changes also required managers to notify researchers when their requests to release research results have been approved or denied, and they required researchers to refrain from releasing results until they received approval. In contrast, although NASA has not made any changes to its policy that guides the dissemination of research through the media, in May 2007, it converted a key management position in the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs from a political appointment to a career civil service position. This was done to address allegations that an official in this office had suppressed climate change science and denied media access to scientists during 2004 and 2005. The change resulted from a management review conducted in early 2006 by NASA's leadership looking into these allegations. While the majority of researchers are familiar with the dissemination policies, GAO's survey indicates that in 2009, 87 percent of researchers were familiar with NASA's dissemination policies, compared with 92 percent in 2007, and slightly less were confident they understood the policies well enough to follow them for certain kinds of dissemination routes, such as publications, presentations, and agency releases. As in 2007, researchers continue to learn about the policies mainly through on-the-job training and e-mails from NASA officials. GAO's 2009 survey, like the 2007 survey, also indicates that researchers remain unclear about when they may discuss research results that have policy implications, including when they may discuss their own views, even though NASA has clarified its policy to allow researchers to do so as long as they do not attribute their views to the agency. Since 2007, NASA has not adopted any new procedures for appealing dissemination decisions. As in 2007, in 2009 relatively few NASA researchers were aware of and familiar with the agency's appeals process. Specifically, GAO's survey found that about one-third of NASA researchers were aware that the agency has a process to appeal decisions related to dissemination, but only about 8 percent said they were familiar with it. Fewer researchers in 2009 than in 2007 said they had sought to disseminate their research in the past 5 years (83 percent compared with 91 percent), and more researchers had their requests denied for other than technical reasons (12 percent in 2009 compared with 7 percent in 2007). Nonetheless, 85 percent of researchers continue to believe that the agency generally supports the dissemination of research results and that the agency's efforts to inform them about policies for all dissemination routes are generally effective.