Scientists’ right to speak
to the press
In their Editorial “Strengthening scientific
integrity” (21 January, p. 247), A. Nelson
and J. Lubchenco summarize the prin-
ciples that the US Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) has articulated
in response to the first report produced
by the recently created Scientific Integrity
Task Force. As representatives of journal-
ists’ organizations, we welcome OSTP’s
recognition that “federal scientists should
be able to speak freely about their unclas-
sified research, including to the press.”
However, Nelson and Lubchenco do not
mention that the task force’s report falls
short of protecting scientists’ rights to
speak directly to journalists.
Too often, federal scientists and other
staff are prohibited from speaking with
journalists without clearance from a
supervisor or public information officer.
Requiring permission to speak not only
violates scientists’ First Amendment
rights ( 1 ); it also tramples on the public’s
right to know and contributes to misin-
formation and distrust in government.
Journalists and others have repeatedly
warned ( 2 ) of the harm done by this
form of censorship. In July 2021, 25
groups wrote to OSTP asking the agency
to renounce such access restrictions ( 3 ).
Unfortunately, despite an encourag-
ing statement or two, the new report
effectively perpetuates the status quo. It
cites approvingly the Obama and Biden
administrations’ policies allowing media
access “in coordination with supervisors
and public affairs officials” ( 4 ). These pol-
icies are insufficient. M any state and fed-
eral agencies, including the Department
of Health and Human Services ( 5 ) and
the Environmental Protection Agency
( 6 ), require all contacts from reporters
to be referred to a press office, ostensi-
bly to ensure that journalists get accu-
rate, timely, and complete information.
However, funneling all queries through a
press office can have the opposite effect.
When journalists are shunted to a press
office, requests for interviews or simple
queries can be delayed from hours to
months, stretching beyond the journal-
ists’ deadlines.
The delay could be because public
information officers are overwhelmed,
or it could be because agency manag-
ers are suppressing information that is
embarrassing or contradictory to agency
messaging. Whatever the reason, poli-
cies that ban all unmonitored contact
between staff and journalists can deprive
the public of critical information, including
evidence of abuses of science and miscon-
duct. That undercuts scientific integrity.
Kathryn Foxhall^1 *, Haisten Willis^1 ,
Timothy Wheeler^2(^1) Committee on Freedom of Information, Society of
Professional Journalists, Indianapolis, IN 46244,
USA.^2 Freedom of Information Task Force, Society
of Environmental Journalists, Washington, DC
20006, USA.
*Corresponding author.
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCES AND NOTES
- Brechner Center for Freedom of Information,
“Protecting sources and whistleblowers: The first
amendment and public employees’ right to speak
to the media” (University of Florida, 2019); https://
brechner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/
Public-employee-gag-orders-Brechner-issue-brief-as-
published-10-7-19.pdf. - “Journalists ask White House for commitment to open-
n e s s ,” S PJ N e w s (2015). - “Scientific integrity joint letter to White House task
force” (2021); http://www.sej.org/sites/default/files/
scientific-integrity-joint-letter-to-white-house-task-
force07262021.pdf. - Scientific Integrity Task Force, “Protecting the integrity
of government science” (2022), p. 30; http://www.white-
house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/01-22-
Protecting_the_Integrity_of_Government_Science.
pdf. - US Department of Health and Human Services,
“Guidelines on the Provision of Information to the
News Media” (2022); http://www.hhs.gov/about/news/
news-media-guidelines/index.html. - ” Biden’s EPA officials: Contact between reporters
and staff still banned without controls,” PR Office
Censorship (2021); https://profficecensorship.
blogspot.com/search?q=EPA.
COMPETING INTERESTS
K.F. is on the Freedom of Information Committee of the
National Press Club and the Right to Know Committee of the
Association of Health Care Journalists. H.W. is a reporter for
the Washington Examiner. T.W. is associate editor and senior
writer for the Bay Journal, a nonprofit news organization
that covers environmental topics in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
10.1126/science.abo6353Let’s not abandon
Russian scientists
R ussian President Vladimir Putin’s brutal,
unprovoked war against Ukraine deserves
all the opprobrium it has received around
the world. This abomination warrants
every appropriately sized and targeted
sanction against the Putin regime that
the horrified world can devise. Sizing
and targeting sanctions to ensure that
their impact on Putin and his designs
exceeds the downsides for Western and
global interests requires some reflection,
however. Such reflection should not be
pushed aside in the understandable heat
and anguish of the moment. As Western
scientists who have engaged in interna-
tional collaborations in many forms onmany topics, we welcome the outpouring
of support across the West for Ukrainian
scientists, including the introduction of
protected visa status for Ukrainians ( 1 ). At
the same time, we urge that our nations’
policy-makers and our science and tech-
nology communities avoid shunning all
Russian scientists for the actions of the
Russian government.
N early all government-to-government
collaboration is understandably on hold
now, but not all engagement with Russian
scientists should be. Shutting down
all interaction with Russian scientists
would be a serious setback to a variety of
Western and global interests and values,
which include making rapid progress on
global challenges related to science and
technology, maintaining nonideological
lines of communication across national
boundaries, and opposing ideological ste-
reotyping and indiscriminate persecution.
Many thousands of Russian academics
and students live and work in the West.
Many of them have criticized the Russian
government in the media or have signed
widely circulated statements by Russian
academics and intellectuals denouncing
the Russian invasion [e.g., ( 2 )]. Surely
these Russians should not be lumped
together with leaders of the Russian state.
Rather, humanitarian provision should
be made to ensure that, as their visas and
passports expire, they are not forcibly
repatriated to face not only isolation from
their Western colleagues but also, very
possibly, persecution.
Decisions made in Western countries
today about how to deal with Russia and
Russians may be in place for a long time
and, ultimately, difficult to reverse. We
fervently hope that all future decisions
about Russian scientists and Russian aca-
demic institutions will reflect a balanced
appraisal that weighs the likely effective-
ness of the measures under consideration
in punishing or deterring the Russian
state against the undesired adverse
impacts on Western and global interests
and values.
John Holdren^1 *, Nina Fedoroff^2 , Neal Lane^3 ,
Nick Talbot^4 , Toby Spribille^5(^1) Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
(^2) The Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, PA 16802, USA.^3 Rice University, Houston, TX
77005, USA.^4 The Sainsbury Laboratory, Norwich,
Norfolk, UK.^5 University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
T6G 2R3, Canada.
*Corresponding author.
Email: [email protected]
REFERENCES AND NOTES
- US Department of Homeland Security, “Secretary
Mayorkas designates Ukraine for temporary pro-
tected status for 18 months” (2022); http://www.dhs.gov/
news/2022/03/03/secretary-mayorkas-designates-
ukraine-temporary-protected-status-18-months.
256 15 APRIL 2022 • VOL 376 ISSUE 6590 science.org SCIENCEINSIGHTS | LETTERS