‘New Media’ Policy for Science?
Comments
Ever since last week’s Google testimony on The Hill to the House Committee on Science and Technology, I’ve been checking the committee’s website to garner an idea into whether our elected officials are ignorant or just plain dumb.
They may be both.
The Committee’s ignorance of how Google Maps and other Internet mapping providers work is disconcerting. Why gripe that Google has “erased” history with maps and imagery that take a static snap shot of a place in time? Do they really think Google is streaming live video from their Alien friends from Area 51 in space? I hope not. Though I hear that streaming imagery is going to be a reality—right after I find a place to hold the Geoblogger meetup at the UC.
Then we see the Committee sticking up for scientists at NOAA, who in the past have been prevented from publishing works that don’t coincide with NOAA’s or the White House’s scientific policies. This is a good thing, which I hope isn’t just a political move by a House committee who wants to stick it to the White House. The dissent thing really isn’t cool. If you’re going to support government researcher to publish truth, then that better be your agenda and nothing else.
Getting back to the point, the committee has been meeting with NOAA and other U.S. scientific agencies to discuss their “new media” policies. These are policies are intended to keep an agency’s employees in-line with agency policy and restrict their publishing abilities. i.e. Using blogs or posting to peer review portals. Of course, with NOAA and NASA we’ve heard of research that contradicts their agency’s policy regarding climate change and how that research was prevented from being published.
I can see how an agency wants to keep its research inline with it’s policy, but at what cost? If you start seeing evidence that the facts are against your policy, then why hide your head in the sand? I’m trying not to criticize, or inject my politics into your life. Rather, I’m asking, “What’s wrong with the government telling the truth?” Isn’t that what science is all about?
Over the past three months of this committee has been pretty aggressive at taking care of its business, supporting innovation, and supporting good change in government. A good and big thing the committee seems to be working on is teaching and enabling more education for U.S. students in the areas of science and technology. So, you can’t really knock that, right?
Still, they should get smart on the geography tech.
