The problem with your argument is that ‘unreasonable’ is in the eye of the beholder. If you agree with the stance of the administration, then their guidelines will appear reasonable. If you don’t agree, you will think the guidelines are unreasonable.

I think the real criteria for speaking out against ones employer (government or otherwise) is if they are asking you to do something illegal or immoral. Only then is it your duty to speak out. Otherwise, express your opinions on your own time and at your own risk!

I’m not sure I take your meaning. My reading of your comment suggests that you think the prohibitions of the NOAA administrator were reasonable. This seems strange to me in light of the statement in the article:

“and tried to bar him from using the phrase climate change at a conference. ”

Certainly the use of the term might be construed to have policy ramifications that the Bush Administration might not wish to address, but how could a scientist not use a scientific term? This seems to interfere with the basic job of the scientist. I also wonder fundamentally how separable the science perspective is from the policy one. I believe Roger has made similar comments in the past re: RC’s self-stated role as an honest broker. Thoughts?

All jobs have terms of employment that employees are reasonably expected to follow. Every new employee — whether in the government or non-government sectors — gets to decide whether to adhere to these terms of employment. In the government sector, failure to adhere to these terms will not lead to dismissal, but in the non-government sector it will.

This creates a pair of notably perverse incentives. First, those who have no intention of being constrained by the terms of their employment contract are drawn to work in government, where they expect civil service rules to shield them from the costs of insubordination. Second, senior government managers try to discern who those people are when they apply for jobs and avoid hiring them.

Scientists and other technical people are hired by government to perform scientific and technical jobs, not to make policy or even to provide policy advice. When they arrogate to themselves the authority to make policy or provide policy advice, they violate the terms of their employment. It is only the shield of civil service that protects thm from dismissal.

Of course, civil service rules were established to protect against politically-motivated retaliation, not to permit or encourage insubordination. But this is the predictable result. Government scientists engaged in politically-motivated insubordination are shielded from otherwise permissible civil service sanctions because the application of such sanctions would appear to be politically motivated.

There is an asymmetry in the way these incidents are characterized depending on which party holds the reins of government.

Make a list of the ranks of so-called “whistleblowers” and you will see that they disproportionately (if not exclusively) represent one point of view.

At the same time there are more and less effective ways of managing such consistency. I discussed some of the complexities in this op-ed:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2453-2006.04.pdf

In this instance NOAA’s efforts are ham-handed and self-destructive at best.

Thanks!

I have spent most of my career in the private sector, but I did work with a small government agency for a few years. During that time, I had guidelines about what I should talk about while representing that agency.

If one is speaking as a representitive of ones employer, isn’t it expected that you speak the message the employer wishes to deliver? Isn’t that your job?

I find it hard to believe that federal agencies have never employed such guidelines until the current administration.

One side plays hard ball and the other side becomes defensive and it degrades into a tit-for-tat situation.

It would be better if there was an effort by all interested parties to seek a higher level of discussion.