Andrew Crighton

News Editor

Within the first week of the Trump Administration, an order to halt media communications within four governmental agencies stirred up emotions and concern.

The departments of Agriculture, the Interior, Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency were told to limit the use of social media and commenting to the media.

This type of hold on social media is not uncommon with the transition of presidential administrations, but there was one key difference pertaining particularly to the EPA.

In addition to limiting communication with the media, EPA scientists will likely have to submit findings for a “case-by-case” review before releasing that information beyond the agency, according to Doug Ericksen, head of communications for the EPA transition team.

This has sparked debate whether releasing information’ means publishing articles in academic journals, or releasing press releases about information.

Shane Gleason, an ISU professor in the political science department, explained that these two situations carry very different implications.

When it comes to deciding what is posted on social media, “That is the employer’s prerogative,” Gleason said.

Shifting the focus of press releases away from topics such as climate change and onto others is also completely inline with what previous administrations have done.

Controlling and reviewing findings before submitting them for publication is far out of precedence.

Whether or not this is a matter of concern comes to the point of what the term “publish” means.

Gleason explained that the term is vague and ambiguous. To academics, when they hear the term, it is taken in the sense of submitting articles and research for peer-review. To others, and perhaps those who made the statement, publish means press releases and posting on social media.

“Given what we know about the general history of incoming administrators’ take on the EPA, I think it’s fairly reasonable to assume that that position, it could mean publishing research,” Gleason said.

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 contained a subsection pertaining to scientific integrity. The law extended the same protections to government employees who report illegal or harmful actions of the government to government scientists who are under threat of having research censored or controlled before being disseminated to the scientific community.

Any violation of that law could have severe consequences for governmental agencies, even outside of the legal arena.

The federal government produces some of the best research according to Gleason. The U.S. Census information is crucial to many social scientists, and data on global child mortality and life expectancy rates are available worldwide for free, which is invaluable to academics.

Part of the reason the government is able to produce this level and quality of research is because by nature of being the government, it attracts some of the best scientists in their respective fields into these positions.

If the government sets a precedent that it would submit researchers to prior review, that could harm its ability to recruit the best.

“I wouldn’t work for a university that wanted to vet my articles before I could submit them for publishing, and I wouldn’t want to work for a government agency that did the same thing,” Gleason said.