On March 3, the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP) released the results of a two-year research effort to explore the working environment of federal scientists in the public health and environmental fields. The results showed that not only is there political interference in their work, but that scientists also faced a series of obstacles that delay the study and dissemination of scientific information that affects the public every day.

SKAPP is a project of the George Washington University’s School of Public Health and Health Services. The researchers at SKAPP interviewed 37 scientists representing 13 federal agencies from May 2008 through January 2009 to discern the issues of most importance to scientists. SKAPP then conducted an online follow-up survey in July and August 2009 to see what effects, if any, the Obama administration had on agencies’ work environments.

The report, Strengthening Science in Government: Advancing Science in the Public Interest, contains recommendations in eight topic areas plus one overarching recommendation. The study describes details of many agencies’ policies and practices regarding how scientists get approval for research topics and communicate among themselves and with the public, as well as the extent of political interference by executive branch employees and members of Congress.

The recommendations address topics such as improving the management of science within agencies, opportunities for scientists to provide feedback on policies, interagency data sharing and communication, and opportunities for professional development. Many recommendations focus on two broad issues: bureaucratic delay in approving proposed research studies, and disseminating research results through cumbersome approval processes.

For example, the authors of the report note, “Many of the scientists interviewed felt that the time and effort required to obtain agency approval for research projects is excessive—and these resources could be better spent on conducting the research, rather than writing lengthy research proposals.”

In addition to internal agency processes, the need for White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval also delays research. Scientists who want to survey the public must have their information collection requests approved by OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Many scientists in the study considered this step to be “excessively burdensome.” This criticism of OMB’s information collection review process is consistent with other scientists’ experiences. OMB’s review can require scientists to revise and resubmit their research proposals, causing further delay.

The report recommends both agencies and OMB streamline their respective approval processes so that research can be conducted in a more timely manner.

Once research is completed, scientists are often frustrated by the processes for clearing the results for publication or other dissemination methods. “Some scientists suggested that their agencies have used the clearance process to delay or even prevent the publication of findings that could ignite controversy,” according to SKAPP’s report. Many agencies have written policies that outline procedures for information dissemination, but the scientists participating in this study often said that there was a difference in what those policies required and what actually happens within an agency. Managerial, procedural, and political considerations can affect not just when but whether some research results are released.

OMB also can play a role in hindering the release of scientific information. Agencies were required to establish information quality guidelines under the 2001 Data Quality Act. OMB added to this requirement additional scientific peer review requirements (even if the research may have already been peer reviewed) for “influential” and “highly influential” scientific assessments. According to the SKAPP report, “When the OMB regulations were first developed, many agencies were concerned that they introduced additional, time-consuming layers of review. In addition to the bureaucratic requirements, these regulations were potentially a means to challenge or delay findings that had regulatory implications.”

The recommendations about disseminating scientific work call for an end to using the clearance process to slow or stop the dissemination of scientific information, for consistent and timely application of the review policies, and for agencies to “have processes for expedited clearance of time-sensitive materials.”

Key words from President Barack Obama’s opening remarks at the Feb. 25, 2010 White House Health Summit via Wordle.

Compare President Obama’s word cloud to Sen. Lamar Alexander’s, who delivered the framing statement on behalf of the Republican caucus. Notice anything interesting?

President Barack Obama unveiled the proposed 2011 federal budget Monday with a fair amount of fanfare and partisan derision. But what does $3.8 trillion mean for your state?

For all the hand-ringing over the projected deficit, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities puts the federal debt into perspective:

Reducing deficits in the short term, however, would undercut the fragile economic recovery. Policymakers should tolerate large deficits over the next several years in order to maintain strong aggregate demand until the economy is back on its feet. Moreover, they can take comfort in the fact that temporary measures intended to aid recovery add very little to the long-term deficit problem. The increase in deficits for several years pales in comparison to the size of the economy over the long run.

Bottom line? Comparing the federal books to your own household cash budget is not an apt comparison unless one considers personal mortgage, credit and student loan debt in the equation. In that case, we’re all underwater between revenue and debt. Willing to give up your house, education and transportation because it exceeds your income? Thought not.

Find more analysis on the proposed federal budget and a podcast with CBPP’s Robert Greenstein on what the president’s priorities mean.

Source: MoveOn.org Political Action

Ten thousand MoveOn members participated in a real-time, dial test of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. The chart, above, indicates their reactions to the speech — spikes above the line indicate approval and those below mark disapproval.

Here are the highest rated phrases from the speech:
1. “To recover the rest [of the bailout money], I’ve proposed a fee on the biggest banks.“
2. “But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.”
3. “We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities, and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean energy jobs.”
4. “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”
5. “And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let’s show the American people that we can do it together.”
6. “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

Here are the lowest rated phrases from the speech:
7. “One in ten Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined.”
8. “That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.”
9. “Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years.”
10. “In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops”

How would you have rated the statements?