The National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) released a new policy statement governing public dissemination of information from the agency. Released on March 30, the policy is an apparent response to allegations that the agency attempted to suppress scientific research on climate change that contradicted Bush administration policy on the issue. While the new policy does begin to clarify and establish official guidelines for release of information, it remains too vague and contains too many loopholes to fully function as a vehicle for public disclosure.

While the new policy statement may have more style than substance, it at least sets the right tone. For instance, the first of five principles declares that NASA "is committed to a culture of openness" and assures the public that agency information "will be accurate and unfiltered." Further, the policy makes it clear that scientists are free to express their personal views, as long as they make clear that such views do not reflect the official position of the agency.

The five principles at the heart of NASA's new disclosure policy include commitments to:

• Maintain a "culture of openness with the media and public" and that information will be "accurate and unfiltered."

   

• Provide the widest practical and appropriate dissemination of prompt, factual and complete information.

   

• Ensure timely release of information.

   

• Allow employees to speak to the press or public about their work.

   

• Comply with other laws and regulations governing disclosure of information such the Freedom of Information Act or Executive Orders.

   

The new policy also lays out the responsibilities of NASA staff when releasing public information or giving interviews to the media, as well as procedures for coordinating information releases. Other sections explain restrictions in the disclosure policy for classified or "sensitive but unclassified" (SBU) information.

NASA enlisted a working group of staff with backgrounds in science, engineering, law, public affairs and management to develop the policy in response to claims from NASA climatologist James Hansen that a political appointee, ironically in the position of Public Information Officer, attempted to prevent Hansen from being interview by National Public Radio. The appointee, George Deutsch, has since left the agency, and NASA apparently would like to ensure that the tactics he used also leave. Under the new policy, Hansen would clearly be allowed to do an interview with NPR, as long as he made clear that his statements were his own opinions and not official positions of the agency.

However, the new policy has problems that will limit its effectiveness. First and foremost is the overall lack of detail throughout its provisions. Several guidelines and criteria have not even be written that will be important to understanding the impacts of this policy. For instance:

• "The Assistant Administrator will develop criteria to identify which news releases and other types of public information will be issued nationwide by NASA Headquarters.

   

• "All NASA employees involved in preparing and issuing NASA public information are responsible for proper coordination…to include review and clearance by appropriate officials prior to issuance...through procedures developed and published by the NASA Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs.

   

• "The Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs shall publish guidelines for the release of public information that may be issued by Centers without clearance from Headquarters' offices."

These missing policy provisions and procedures, along with details of key definitions and criteria, are vital in determining how well NASA's new disclosure policy will function. Without them, the policy remains incomplete and, thus, weak and vulnerable to manipulation.

For instance, the new policy is primarily directed at the release of information to the media, such press releases and events, and is not intended to apply to scientific reports or technical data. The scope of the policy is so vaguely defined, however, that the possibility exists that it could interfere with the release of scientific information. The information covered by the policy is defined as "information in any form in any form provided to news and information media, especially information that has the potential to generate significant media, or public interest or inquiry." Information that has the potential to generate public interest or inquiry could easily include scientific or technical reports on controversial issues, such as global warming.

Provisions establishing responsibilities and procedures for coordination also fall short of the mark. Several provisions establish, what appears to be an overly broad review and control process for disclosure of information. For instance, NASA requires that all materials being prepared for public release receive "review and clearance by appropriate officials." A provision for "Dispute Resolution" establishes that any dispute arising from a decision to issue a "news release or other type of public information will be addressed and resolved by the Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs." No explanation is given of what exactly constitutes a "dispute," who can raise one, or what the possible repercussions staff members face for being involved in a disclosure dispute. These provisions, coupled with the policy's vague scope, could easily result in discouraging releases and statements by NASA staff on scientific information.

These bureaucratic controls could be misused to allow political manipulation and spin-doctoring of scientific materials, particularly since the release of information must be approved by personnel without a background in science--precisely what the policy is supposed to prevent. A policy conducive to a "culture of openness," it seems, would require notification of the appropriate officials and public affairs specialists about the release of scientific information, rather than approval from non-scientists.

Another of the policy's major problems is the enormous loophole created by provisions restricting the disclosure of "sensitive but unclassified" (SBU) information. The policy's definition of SBU includes very specific information, such as:

• proprietary information under confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements;
• information on source selection, bids and proposals;
• information subject to export control;
• privacy information; and
• predecisional materials.

The definition also incorporates a catch-all clause that is broad and vague enough to apply to almost any information. The provision rounds out the SBU definition by including information that could indicate "U.S. government intentions, capabilities, operations, or activities or otherwise threaten operations security."

The sweeping definition provides no specific criteria to allow NASA staff to confidently distinguish between legitimate SBU information and other information about NASA operations. The provision also fails to establish procedures for the information to be properly reviewed. Without these clarifying policy details, and with employees facing possible prosecution or disciplinary action should SBU information be released without permission, these provisions will almost certainly lead to overuse of the SBU category and unnecessary withholding of information from the public.

Other agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, have been widely criticized by information access and open government advocates for vague policies that overly restrict disclosure of information. It appears, unfortunately, that NASA has failed to learn from the pitfalls encountered by other agencies and to develop a robust, detailed disclosure policy.