,
13 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
If you find yourself newly interested in NOAA, scientific integrity, and how decisionmakers are held accountable for following the science-based missions of agencies. Here's some background. There are reasons #sharpiegate is playing out this way.
Before 2011, most federal agencies didn't have much in terms of scientific integrity protections for staff. The Bush II administration laid bare this glaring vulnerability, with abuses of science across the government from ideological and financial forces ucsusa.org/our-work/cente…
As a result, @UCSUSA and others in the scientific community insisted scientific integrity be a priority under the Obama administration and that the policies be strong. By the end of the Obama administration some 28 agencies had scientific integrity policies on the books.
It took a lot of work to get there. We developed model policies, met with agencies, critiqued draft policies, and surveyed thousands of scientists--all to figure out how best to protect government science from political interference. ucsusa.org/preservingscie…
I'd like to emphasize that is work wasn't headline news, it didn't get attention but it was necessary to ensure we had the strongest policies possible in case we once again got a president that didn't respect science. And you know what happened next...
NOAA is a leader on scientific integrity, its policy is stellar and--equally important--the agency has developed a strong culture of scientific integrity that was reinforced by by its leaders, by staff training, by internal infrastructure. And it shows. ucsusa.org/sites/default/…
As a result, going into the #sharpiegate fiasco, NOAA scientists were well positioned to (1) recognize when scientific integrity was being violated and (2) know the pathways for pushing back and holding actors accountable.
NOAA scientists knew it was inappropriate when they were asked to accommodate the President's lies into their weather risk communication: "This is the first time I’ve felt pressure from above to not say what truly is the forecast” one said. washingtonpost.com/politics/noaa-…
Because NOAA has a policy, a scientific integrity officer, and a process, there were clear next steps. The NOAA Chief Scientist announced he would launch an investigation under the scientific integrity policy. washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/0…
Under NOAA's policy, others too can help hold people accountable. @UCSUSA has filed a scientific integrity complaint with NOAA. And Congress too has launched investigations into the matter ucsusa.org/sites/default/…
This has played out very differently at NOAA than similar issues at other agencies. We are seeing many acts of defiance against political pressures to compromise the science and several pathways for accountability of those who violate the policy.
Many voices are now pushing back against the administration's attempts to attack NOAA science. This story continues in no small part due to the large amount of work (both in and outside the agency) that went into strengthening NOAA scientific integrity over the past decade.
This is all to explain why I was mad enough to use my Friday night to write this tweet thread and blog post. blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldm…
