... during a meeting between scientists and the regional administrator
who will oversee this office was, "Look at your W-2." In other words, the terms of employment are clear and if you don't like it, hit the road. Is that different from private industry?
... That's fine with me, except the scientist better not be wrong.
For example, a number of years ago a gov research office published a series of maps of the northern coast of Alaska and showing the location of calving areas and oil industry infrastructure and some model outputs that indicated various probability matrices concerning the impact of exploration and production on the migratory caribou herd. It made a big stink while the senate was going through one of it's many paroxysms over ANWR. It seemed to indicate that teh caribou herd would be tragically impacted.
But wait a minute --> the scientist who was modeling the migratory patterns didn't send the outputs for internal peer review [ the regional administrator? ]
The GIS tech was fired and the scientist was chastised for not exerting greater control over his tech. That's as it should be. The downside has been reverberating ever since. Worse, every time a gov scientist releases info that undermines policy the politicians remember the other events. Yes, there have been others, including outright fraud by gov scientists.
I think the current system is way, way too burdensome. It provides a de facto censorship
because scientists vett their work for policy implications. Why risk a firestorm from above? (Chicken)
Finally, one of the unintended consequences of Gore's "re-inventing government" was to actually increase political interference with gov science in the name of making scientists accountable and responsive.
Got a perfect solution? I don't.