Earle M. Holland

Science Writing/Science Communications/Research Risk Communications

[An unpublished column following the controversy over NASA officials' pressuring of researchers to fall more in line with the Bush Administration's political and science policies. 4/3/06]

What's wrong with NASA's 'openness'

Make no mistake. The new-and-improved policy NASA Administrator Michael Griffin announced this week to cover the release of information from the nation's space agency is a very good thing. It categorically addresses concerns that have grown over the last few months over the pitting of politics against the openness of science.

And in a society where "spin" seems to have gained on "fact" -- if not passed it on the backstretch -- any improvements are welcome.

But for all of its seemingly good intentions, the policy still carries an underlying message: NASA still believes its scientists need help to talk to the news media. And that mindset can potentially denigrate the scientist and shortchange the public.

The NASA public affairs pot boiled over last year when James E. Hansen, a highly respected climate change expert and director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, along with other scientists, announced that he'd been pressured by George C. Deutsch, a young public affairs political appointee, to restrict his climate change comments to more closely match Bush administration policy.

After the furor, Hansen is still highly respected and Deutsch disappeared from the public eye. But lingering questions of political influence on science continued and Griffin sought to isolate that conflict when it came to public affairs. Thus, the new policy, and while it is arguably more "open," in some ways, little has changed.

At one point, the policy reads, "All NASA employees are required to coordinate . . . with the appropriate public affairs officers prior to releasing information that has the potential to generate significant media, or public interest or inquiry." That rule has little to do with openness and everything to do with maximizing publicity for the agency.

At another point, it urges NASA employees "to have a public affairs officer present during interviews," adding that "their role will be to attest to the content of the interview, support the interviewee and provide post-interview follow up with the media as necessary." A Q&A document released by NASA to its employees to further explain the policy says that this arrangement "is strongly encouraged, but not required."

Now I have been a public affairs, or public information, officer nearly all of my adult life, aside from five years reporting for a large Southern newspaper. And this rule or suggestion for having a PAO or PIO in the room during a reporter-scientist interview still makes no sense to me.

First off, reporters hate it. Even in situations where the reporter and PIO are friends, there is an underlying discomfort as to the rules of the discussion. Is the PIO a fly on the wall or a participant? Does the scientist understand the three-way interplay or does he/she see the PIO as a monitor from management? Who does the reporter defer to if scientist and PIO disagree?

Interviews with the news media are tricky things. But with really good reporters, they are more conversations than interrogations, built on reaching some common ground of understanding and then adding on new information and context. And like a stranger at the dinner table, the PIO as third-party can skew that discussion.

Smart PIOs know that if reporters need help, they'll ask for it.

Scientists, on the other hand, are often neophytes when it comes to the news media. They make the fatal flaw of assuming that the rules of the culture of science mirror those of the culture of journalism, since both depend largely on the foundation of facts. Horror stories abound in academe of researchers who've claimed to have been misquoted when actually they never knew the rules of the game they were playing.

A PIO in the interview room with reporter and source gives the scientist a crutch to lean on. And while it's easy to see how this would be comforting, it does nothing to improve the ability of scientists to communicate effectively with the news media. And until they learn that skill, much of the value of their science will be lost to the populace.

The overwhelming majority of the public simply doesn't understand science, how it is done and how to evaluate it. And they're not likely to take the time and effort needed to change that status, no matter how interested they individually may be in research. That's why scientists need to learn to talk to the news media and public, to share their passion for research and the benefits it may bring.

Public affairs officers do have a role to play in helping foster that dialogue. But they really ought to wait to be asked to join the conversation.

#

Earle Holland taught science journalism for 20 years and is now assistant vice president for research communications at Ohio State University.