Microsoft Word - Grading Methods 1020.doc

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) evaluated 15 US federal agencies on their media communication openness, assigning separate grades for official policy and actual practice. The study found significant disparities between written rules and scientist perceptions, with the CDC receiving the highest policy grade (A) and the NSF the highest practice grade (O). The analysis highlights systemic issues such as the lack of explicit 'Right of Last Review' and 'Personal Views Exception' in many agency policies, as well as perceived interference and restrictive pre-approval requirements in practice.

• The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) assigned two distinct grades to 15 federal agencies: a policy grade based on official written communication rules and a practice grade based on the perceptions of 739 federal scientists.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) achieved the highest policy grade (A) with a score of 88, while the National Science Foundation (NSF) received the highest practice grade (O) with a score of 74.
• Several agencies received an 'Incomplete' policy grade because no comprehensive media policy could be located via agency websites or Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, specifically the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was assigned a policy grade of 'D' because it lacked an agency-wide policy; the score was instead based on a range (32 to 70) derived from five separate policies found for individual laboratories or regional offices.
• The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) received the lowest policy grade (F) with a score of 37 and one of the lowest practice grades (U) with a score of 42.
• Policy grading was based on six categories: protection of scientific free speech, safeguards against abuse, openness and timeliness, accessibility/clarity, handling of misconduct/disputes, and legal compliance.
• The 'Right of Last Review' and 'Personal Views Exception' are identified as the two fundamental tenets of scientific free speech, yet many agencies failed to explicitly guarantee these in their policies.
• Practice scores were derived from a survey of 739 scientists, using five categories: accessibility/consistency, protection of free speech, safeguards against abuse, scientists' perceptions, and openness/timeliness.

APA

Donaghy, T., Grifo, F., Lafontant, K., & Maassarani, T. (2008). Microsoft Word - Grading Methods 1020.doc. Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Freedom-to-Speak-Methodology.pdf

Chicago

Donaghy, Timothy, Francesca Grifo, Krystina Lafontant, and Tarek Maassarani. Microsoft Word - Grading Methods 1020.doc. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2008. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Freedom-to-Speak-Methodology.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Donaghy |first1=Timothy |last2=Grifo |first2=Francesca |last3=Lafontant |first3=Krystina |last4=Maassarani |first4=Tarek |title=Microsoft Word - Grading Methods 1020.doc |publisher=Union of Concerned Scientists |date=17 October 2008 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Freedom-to-Speak-Methodology.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{donaghy2008microsoft, author = {Donaghy, Timothy and Grifo, Francesca and Lafontant, Krystina and Maassarani, Tarek}, title = {{Microsoft Word - Grading Methods 1020.doc}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2008}, month = oct, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Freedom-to-Speak-Methodology.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }