The Biden administration is facing backlash over proposing a speech rule for federal scientists that critics say is a gag order.
Buried in the "Framework for Federal Scientific Integrity Policy and Practice" released by the White House in January is language banning scientists from speaking without prior approval, and even then only about certain topics.
BIDEN ENCOUNTERS NEW PRESSURE TO MAINTAIN BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE POLICY
That has critics and First Amendment advocates concerned.
"This policy is problematic in many ways," said former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spokesman Glen Nowak. "This could become a major impediment to being able to communicate science, which is not just about findings but what those findings suggest and what they mean."
The rule, which is listed under a subhead reading "Ensuring the Free Flow of Scientific Information," outlines under what circumstances scientists can speak.
“[Agency] scientists shall refrain from making or publishing statements that could be construed as being judgments of, or recommendations on, [an agency] or any other federal government policy, unless they have secured appropriate prior approval to do so," it reads. "Such communications shall remain within the bounds of their scientific or technological findings, unless specifically otherwise authorized.”
Nowak, now a University of Georgia professor, adds that transparency among government scientists is especially important because their salaries are paid for with taxpayer dollars. He argues that such a policy has no discernible upside but many significant downsides.
He's not alone. The nonprofit organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility released a letter outlining a host of concerns the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy raises.
"OSTP claims that it seeks to promote a free and open exchange of scientific information," the letter reads. "Yet, this poorly worded, overly broad provision clearly does the opposite."
An OSTP spokesperson said that accusations of gagging are false.
"There is no gag rule," said the unnamed person. "In fact, OSTP is working with federal departments and agencies to ensure that federal scientific integrity policies and practices support scientific communication with the media and the public, including the timely release of scientific information. The OSTP Scientific Integrity Framework lays out a pathway for all federal agencies to do just that by strengthening their scientific integrity policies and practices, and run thorough and responsible internal processes, to ensure that scientific information communicated to the public is always reliable—including ensuring that federal scientists can fully participate and communicate scientific information, free of interference."
The policy in question is also not exactly new, with origins dating back at least to the Obama administration. Similar policies also exist at other federal agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture.
But scientific research and policy are under a particular spotlight in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is now fading into the rearview but upended nearly all aspects of life for two years. Fierce debates over lockdowns, the effectiveness of masks and vaccines, and even how the disease started still rage today.
Scientific research is at the heart of many of those debates, and the top-down nature of many pandemic policies led to various accusations of censorship over the last three years.
"What makes for scientific progress is the ability of people to feel comfortable disagreeing with the precepts behind any particular research project," said Jeff Singer, a surgeon and Cato Institute fellow. "You can't reach the truth if people are not allowed to speak out critically."
While they may be problematic, not everyone is convinced such policies are likely to be changed under Biden or any other president.
Andrew Noymer, a University of California-Irvine public health professor, says such procedures have been around for decades, even if they haven't always been written.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“As long as I’ve been in this business this has been the policy at CDC,” he said. “I do take a dim view of this, but I always have.”
Nonetheless, Singer argues that most voters likely are unaware of the speech controls and likely wouldn't be happy about it if they were.
"I think most Americans would be alarmed to know this and would be very upset about it," he said. "We're supposed to be a free and open society. Not only is it an injustice to the public who is funding the work, it does an injustice to science."