It seems that some disclosures of classified information can lead a person to poverty, ignominy and a jail sentence, while others provide a royal road to fame and fortune. Some leaks are relentlessly investigated, while others are tolerated or encouraged.
This apparent inconsistency, as notably illustrated once again in the phenomenon of author Bob Woodward, was examined by Michael Isikoff in “‘Double standard’ in White House leak inquiries?”, NBC News, October 18.
In the wake of an earlier Woodward book in 2007, Rep. Henry Waxman noted a similar discrepancy in the Bush Administration’s response to leaks.
“The administration seems to be inconsistent in their approach in these cases, and it’s troubling,” Rep. Waxman said at a March 16, 2007 hearing. “They raise very serious questions about whether White House policies on sensitive information are driven by political considerations. If it’s a critic [who discloses classified information] they are going to investigate, they’re going to really stop it. When it comes to people in-house, people they like, people they trust, well, the investigation hasn’t even started with regard to those people.”
There is no question this is a Big Deal. If you are a university or research lab, or aspire to work in one, or are simply an enthusiast of federally-funded research, what’s next will matter.
The emerging federal metascience community is asking fascinating questions that are equally vital for democratic legitimacy: beyond “did this program work” to “how does the federal R&D enterprise itself work, and how could it work better?”
If you’re new to the climate intervention space, welcome! The TL;DR: if we can’t stop the most catastrophic impacts of climate change with current tools quickly enough, then we need a bigger toolbox.
After months of delay, the council tasked by President Trump to review the FEMA released its final report. Our disaster policy nerds have thoughts.