NASA Scientific Integrity Response Under Fire
NASA Might Be Open to Boosting Whistleblower Protections, Wired
“Under attack for leaving whistleblowers out to dry, NASA has tentatively signaled that it’s open to changing its policies. “We believe that strongly enforcing existing protections is not something to be embarrassed about,” said NASA spokesperson Bob Jacobs. “That said, if NASA’s science community wants to consider the pros and cons of advancing additional protections, we would not discourage such a process.” Though Jacobs’ words are restrained, they represent a change in NASA’s position towards criticisms raised after their new science integrity plan was publicized by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a government watchdog group.”
NASA Refuses To Adopt Scientific Intergity Policy — Defiance May Signal White House Signature Initiative Is Foundering, Pubic Employees for Environmental Responsibility
“NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) has decided that it does not need new scientific integrity rules despite a White House directive to all agencies. How the White House handles this NASA stance may foretell whether its vaunted scientific integrity effort will collapse as other agencies declare their current policies to be sufficient, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).”
Ensuring Scientific Integrity at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
“The present document responds to the May 5, 2011, request. As NASA demonstrated in its April 2011 report to OSTP, NASA already has a variety of policies in place to ensure scientific and engineering integrity. The intent of the present document is thus to highlight how NASA’s existing policies support scientific and engineering integrity as well as to note the actions NASA plans to take to strengthen its policies in this area. References and website links to existing policy documents are furnished where applicable; NASA directs the reader to these references for a full description of the Agency’s commitment to scientific and engineering integrity. The present document is organized to respond to the four major areas and 17 sub-areas addressing scientific and engineering integrity that are explicitly addressed in Dr. Holdren’s December 17, 2010, memorandum.”
