Witch hunt, or public right to know?

[pscot]

This is kind of long, but Paul D. Thacker makes a strong argument for openness.

As interest groups on both the left and right increasingly try to politicize the scientific process, there’s little question that there will be misuse of the Freedom of Information laws that some journalists and watchdog organizations have used to uncover wrongdoing.

Scientists have been harassed in the past and no doubt will continue to be harassed in the future, just like other public servants. You can argue that Mr. Smith’s broadsides against NOAA are a case in point. In turn, scientists are free to fight these information requests or seek to narrow the scope of the inquiries to protect against what they believe threatens the integrity of the scientific process or chills research.

But the harassment argument should not be used as an excuse to bar access to scientific research that the public is paying for and has a legitimate interest in seeing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/sunday/scientists-give-up-your-emails.html?smid=re-share&_r=0

[daleanime]

1. Loses me right at the beginning.....

with this "both right and left" shit.

[-none]

2. You noticed the spin right up front, huh?

Not much information stands up right on its own and doesn't change from hour to hour anymore.

[pscot]

3. Saw right through it, eh?

That must save a lot of time.

[xocet]

4. Harassment is the entire purpose of Lamar Smith's requests. If Smith wants to debate the...

science of climate change, let him attempt to publish his contrary findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If his "work" and/or objections bear no scientific merit (and he would not be taking the approach that he has taken if those objections had merit), they can send him his 'paper' back with a note explaining his deficiencies.

[pscot]

5. No doubt

But there's a principle at stake. Do people who work for government have to answer to Congress. They do. Smith will look like a fool at the end of the day anyway.