AGU Urges U.S. Agencies to Protect Scientific Integrity and Open Communication of Scientific Information
Today, AGU issued this letter to federal agency heads and press release to science-interested media.
AGU expressed its concern over recent reports related to scientific integrity and open communication of scientific information generated by federal agencies to the public. We will continue to monitor what’s happening to science at the federal agency level and speak out to protect the rights of scientists and the principles of scientific integrity. I encourage you to share AGU’s position statement “AGU Supports Free and Open Communication of Scientific Findings,” which was adopted in 2011, and reaffirmed in September 2016.
If you’d like to get involved, we encourage you to take the following actions:
- Consider sending a copy of the letter to your members of Congress. AGU’s Action Center platform provides an easy option for sending such communications, and it can be accessed here.
- Sign up for AGU’s Science Policy Alerts, where we will be sharing regular updates and making recommendations for how you can take action.
Trump’s policy regarding science is pathetic! I disgrace for Mankind.
I agree with this statement.
I very much appreciate the AGU’s preparing this communication that I may send to my representative and senators, but where is it? I can’t find it on AGU’s email.
Hello, thank you for wanting to send the information to your legislators! I work in AGU’s Public Affairs Department. You can write your representatives directly here: http://actioncenter.agu.org/app/write-a-letter?7&engagementId=282113 We set up a website to make it easy to send a message with the text of the letter already populated. Or simply go to actioncenter.agu.org and click “Write Your Legislators”.
The symbolism is appreciated, but the current, interim agency heads are hardly the right addressees
Good for you! I’m in full agreement. Glad I didn’t resign a few months ago.
I fully agree with this statement.
I agree with this statement
It is imperative to the scientific community to insist that politics must stay out of scientific research and free scientific information continue to flow.
These improper expectations and arrogance of Mr. Trump’s administration remind me of the pressure imposed on the societies by the fascist regimes in Europe during the years leading to the second world war. I hope that this time the intelectual community stands out homophonically against this illogical demand.
I am an AGU member, a research seismologist and a Iranian citizen working in Germany. Since 2009, I have almost every year attended the AGU fall meeting to present my work and meet my colleagues. It is a shame now tha with the new executive order signed by Mr. Trump, I can no longer tavel to the USA. I understand the concern of each country about its security and strongly condemn the ignorant terrorism against humanity. However, I do not understand how Mr Trump presume that all people from a nation are potentially terrorist. I beleive this is a very wrong way of confronting the radicalism. The solution against prejudice is not prejudice.
Before you jump to conclusions, you might investigate the matter a bit more. A good place to start would be a read of Alan Carlin’s 2015 book, ”Environmentalism Gone Mad: How a Sierra Club Activist and Senior EPA Analyst Discovered a Radical Green Energy Fantasy,” which documents EPA management censoring of opinions not in line with a desired message. There are differences between the willy-nilly personal communications of federal employees that are not reviewed but appear to be representative of the agency’s view, the official dissemination of peer-reviewed reports and the selective release of government reports by department management to support a particular viewpoint. Which of these communications and possibly others might be targeted by government guidelines and for what purpose? What is the origin of the these guidelines and exactly what are the guidelines? Rumors and hearsay do not appear to be the kind of information that would warrant starting a letter writing campaign. What are the facts? Without the facts, the AGU “voice” has a hollow ring.