blogs for industry...blogs for the dead
| blogs for industry ...blogs for the dead |
 New address for Nick Anthis | Back to blogs for industry | Mike Dornheim missing in LA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In honor of his move, I'll take up Nick on this challenge: How can anyone argue with that?referring to the Miller (d-NC) amendmentto the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, aka "Restoring Scientific Integrity to Research and Policymaking". Things with names that pompous trigger my bogometer. False positives do occur...but I find that it's pretty well calibrated. But we should look at the amendment. Here's part of what it prohibits. 1 (A) PROHIBITION. An employee of theI don't think anyone, even Republicans, thinks Federal researchers should not be protected from political interference. The problem is defining what is interference and what is reasonable protection. In other words, one person's interference is another's oversight. This seems like an awfully blunt instrument where the cure could be worse than the disease. Of course, that's my default position on any new law of any kind. First, do no harm, and second, watch out for those unintended effects. That Nick categorizes this post under "Republicans" indicates that he thinks of the problem as protecting Scientists from Republicans. One should always consider how rules would work if roles were reversed, and I don't think he's considered the mischief this law could create in protecting cranks, since the critierion is only that the employee "reasonably believes" in whatever garbage they're spouting...and "any employee" goes all the way to protecting the idiot whose exposure propelled Nick to his 15 minutes of fame. That's right, Nick. If your buddy George Deutsch had restricted himself to merely injecting his Creationist views into NASA science briefs instead of also complaining about others not doing so, Miller's amendment arguably would have protected him from being fired. Do you want to bet on making a case that his beliefs are not "reasonably" believed in front of a judge appointed by Republicans? The Miller amendment gives any employee of the Administration more protection than a tenured faculty member. While it's hard to fire us, there are personnel actions (esp. in the "fail to take" category, like failure to recommend raises or promotions) that can be justified no matter how sincere our beliefs are. And the employees protected by the Miller amendment are not, as far as I can tell, required to go through the multiyear probationary period and outside review that goes with tenure. There are other ways to protect dissenting views...including instilling the fear of ridicule and political backlash in an Administration. That's how we got to hear of Nick's blog in the first place.
TrackbacksThe Trackback URL for this entry is: http://dimer.tamu.edu/simplog/tb.php/3747
Pingbacks
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||