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.