At the core of the debate over NASA and NOAA policies for the interaction of scientists with the media lies an implicit and ill-defined distinction between discussions of science and discussions of policy. Most discussions of Dr. Hansen have glossed over the distinction between his right to speak out and his fundamental disagreement with the policies of the U.S. government. Is there a point at which Dr. Hansen, or other government officials in similar situation, have an obligation to resign? The answer is that it is complicated.


Democratic government would be impossible without career government employees whose duty it is to carry out the laws and policies put into place by the properly elected representatives of the people. But is reality, career government employees have considerable discretion in their duties and are key factors in recommending and implementing policy. The debate over James Hansen has thus far failed to engage these complicated issues, falling back on the worn, but safe science-policy distinction.

For example, Michael Griffin, NASA administrator, released a statement on said “I encourage scientists to conduct peer-reviewed research and provide the honest results of those findings.” What is unsaid by NOAA and NASA here is how scientists should manage discussing policy issues when they are in political opposition to the current policies of the U.S. government, which is really at the core of the debate of NASA and NOAA.

A news story from Australia helps to frame the challenge:

A FORMER CSIRO senior scientist and internationally recognised expert on climate change claims he was reprimanded and encouraged to resign after he spoke out on global warming. . . Dr Pearman says he fell out with his CSIRO superiors after joining the Australian Climate Group, an expert lobby group convened by the Insurance Australia Group and environment body WWF in late 2003. A core aim of the group was to encourage Australian political leaders to consider carbon trading — where industry pollution is capped and there are financial incentives to reduce emissions — and other measures including a target to reduce greenhouse gases by 60 per cent by 2050. The Federal Government has said it will not pursue carbon trading at this stage. It accepts that global warming is real and poses a threat to the Australian environment, but does not support mandatory targets for reducing carbon emissions. Dr Pearman, who headed the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research for 10 years until 2002, said he was admonished by his Canberra superiors for “making public expressions of what I believed were scientific views, on the basis that they were deemed to be political views”.

What is political advocacy anyway? Political advocacy refers to efforts to reduce the scope of choice available to decision makers, typically to some desired course of action. In the case above, Dr. Pearman was not only acting as a political advocate in arguing for carbon trading, he actively joined groups whose mission was overt political advocacy. For his part, Dr. Pearman doesn’t seem to recognize what political advocacy actually is stating, “In 33 years (with CSIRO), I don’t think I had ever felt I was political in that sense. I’ve worked with ministers and prime ministers from both parties over a long period of time, and in all cases I think I’ve tried to draw a line between fearless scientific advice about issues and actual policy development, which I think is in the realm of government.” The article does not say how active Dr. Pearman was in his political advocacy, but it is conceivable that his advocacy actions were in direct conflict with his duties as a government employee and as such it would be entirely appropriate to ask him to leave. (Much the same if a conscientious objector objected to a war. Rather than force them to fight or allow them to block implementation it would be appropriate to relieve them of their government duties.)

James Hansen has clearly engaged in political advocacy unrelated to his expertise on climate when he came out in support of John Kerry, when he criticized the role of special interests he disagrees with influencing the Bush Administration, and when he offered some comparisons to NOAA press policy, “It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States.” And James Hansen also engaged in political advocacy related to his expertise when he called for the U.S. government to act on reducing greenhouse gases. All of this seems quite obvious.

Let me emphasize that I think that Dr. Hansen should be able to do all of these things, provided that he is clear that he is offering his opinions and they differ from those of his employer, the government of the United States. He did exactly this in a recent speech,

Hansen prefaced his speech, which focused largely on how quickly humans must act in order to prevent irreversible climate change, by saying he was speaking as an individual. “I’m not speaking for the agency or the government,” he said.

But at the same time it is important to recognize how government works in the United States, and most democracies. Far reaching national policies are set by the duly elected representatives of the people, and not unelected government bureaucrats. Governance would be impossible if every government employee sought to implement policies according to their own personal beliefs. As Sobel writes in an excellent article titled “The Ethics of Resigning,”

All senior leaders, whether appointed or career, serve in an administration and for a principle with broader responsibilities. These officials have special obligations to protect and support their principal and administration as the mechanism of democratic accountability in government. They have strong implicit obligations to stay within the policy framework of their administration and not undermine their principal.

Dr. Hansen has every right to disagree with the policies of the U.S. government. But at some point, Dr. Hansen and others in government positions have to decide where their allegiances lie – do they want to work for the government and help to implement those policies that, for better or worse, are the result of the messy process of democracy? Or do they want to throw their efforts behind the aims of special interest groups who are seeking particular political outcomes? There is indeed a choice to be made as they cannot effectively do both. And sometimes, the ethically correct choice in a democracy is to resign and take the honorable position of outspoken political advocate.

J. P. Dobel argues that the decision to resign from a government position has positives and negatives, among them,

. . . resignation can help ensure accountability to democratic institutions . . . exit from an institution can signal to the public the existence of a debate over deeper or more serious issues than had been exposed in public deliberations. A public resignation with voice adds information and credibility to dissent. Like any human action, however, resignation cuts both ways and can also harm accountability. If everyone opposed to a policy exits, the institution loses its capacity for internal reform. Exits of dissenters narrow the range of options within an inner circle, encourage groupthink, and undermine the internal trust and communication needed for honest policy discussion.

Dobel argues that career officials have strong incentives not to resign,

Career officials possess strong independent moral obligations to stay and accede to legal changes in policy as they respond to democrativ accountability and defend the competence of their office. They might believe they can ameliorate the policy, leak, or whistle blow, or work to change the policy.

Bottom line from my perspective:

NASA and NOAA have an obligation to allow career scientists to express their views on science and its relationship with policy.

Career scientists have an obligation to differentiate their personal views from official government policies.

Career scientists need to look inside themselves and ask the difficult question, “If I cannot in good faith fulfill my job and its responsibilities to implement the policies of a democratic government because I disagree with those policies, do I have an ethical obligation to resign and take on a role as political advocate working to change the system?”

If democratic governance is to be possible, then for some people in some situations, the answer to this question should be “Yes.” I don’t know what the answer is for James Hansen, but it is a question that he should ask himself every day that he works to overturn U.S. government policies on climate.

Reference: J.P. Dobel, 1999. The Ethics of Resigning, Journal Policy Analysis and Management, 18:245-263.