In last few days, the news began to report that the Trump Administration has put a gag order on the EPA, and restricted communications across numerous other federal agencies, including the USDA, the Department of Health and Human Services, and other agencies. Under the order, press releases and other releases of materials to the public have been put on hold and media releases are screened for approval by administration officials. This includes a halt on the publication of scientific research papers conducted by government scientists (at least through the government). Additionally, various materials on climate change have been removed from the EPA website, and various tweets on climate change issued by the National Parks Service have been retroactively deleted. This gag follows a freeze implemented on EPA grants, halting new business activity conducted by the agency.
The move, which fits in with a larger pattern of hostility to climate science and prickly attempts at message control on the Trump Administration’s part, was roundly criticized. Environmentalists, progressives, and the scientific community reacted strongly to the news. The American Association for the Advancement of Sciences warned against “censorship and intimidation”. Similarly, websites and Facebook groups calling for a “Scientists March On Washington” have garnered significant attention.
Some of this may have been an overreaction. Many of these are gags are likely to be temporary, and not a far reaching as many suspect. While the moves against the EPA seem to have been largely intentional, many of the gags were internal measures responding to a broader regulator freeze. This begets the question of why such occurrences did not occur in previous administrations, but it still takes some of the onus off the Trump administration and implies much of this may be more “cockup” than “conspiracy”.
Still, the reaction to the whole issue is justified. Whether the whole thing was a deliberate attempt at controlling government science or simply an unintended consequence of clumsily implemented policy, it represents a bad precedence. And while the issue may seem abstract, with little impact outside narrow issues like climate change, it is in fact a very serious issue. In the US, public access to government science has been built into a vitally important part of our economic system, both in terms of practical day to day uses and the strategic long term well-being of the country. We do need to jealously guard the openness and transparency of government science, because if it were undermined, the damage would be both long lasting and potentially irreversible.
Continue reading here