Grading Government Transparency

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) evaluated 17 US federal agencies on their media and social media policies to determine the freedom with which federal science is communicated. Using a rubric based on scientific openness, the UCS assigned letter grades (A-D or Incomplete). NOAA received the highest media policy grade (A, 97 points), while the Department of Energy received an 'Incomplete' (25 points). For social media, the NIH scored highest (A, 90 points), while the CPSC, NSF, and NRC received 'Incomplete' grades due to a lack of comprehensive policies. The assessment included FOIA requests and a survey of 72 federal scientists to provide context on how these policies are implemented in practice.

• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) achieved the highest score for media policy with 97 points, earning a grade of 'A'.
• The National Institutes of Health (NIH) received the highest grade for social media policy with a score of 90 points ('A').
• Several agencies received 'Incomplete' grades for social media policies because the UCS was unable to obtain comprehensive policies through websites or FOIA requests, specifically the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), National Science Foundation (NSF), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
• The Department of Energy (DOE) received an 'Incomplete' grade for its media policy with a score of 25, as the available Scientific Integrity Policy did not provide enough information to complete the scoring.
• The Department of Labor (DOL) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) received the lowest completed media policy grades, both scoring 47 points ('D').
• The UCS identified a widespread lack of explicit protections for the 'Right of Last Review'—the right of scientists to review final drafts of communications relying on their research—across many agency policies.
• FOIA request outcomes varied significantly; while many agencies responded with documents, the Centers for Disease Control, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Department of Commerce, and Environmental Protection Agency provided no response within five months of the request.
• Survey responses from federal scientists suggested that official policies are sometimes bypassed or supplemented by 'off the record' communications to avoid slow agency media offices or perceived interference.

APA

Goldman, G., Bailin, D., Renaud, A., Rogerson, P., & Grifo, F. (2013). Grading Government Transparency. Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/grading-government-transparency-methodology.pdf

Chicago

Goldman, Gretchen, Deborah Bailin, Alexander Renaud, Paul Rogerson, and Francesca Grifo. Grading Government Transparency. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2013. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/grading-government-transparency-methodology.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Goldman |first1=Gretchen |last2=Bailin |first2=Deborah |last3=Renaud |first3=Alexander |last4=Rogerson |first4=Paul |last5=Grifo |first5=Francesca |title=Grading Government Transparency |publisher=Union of Concerned Scientists |date=March 2013 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/grading-government-transparency-methodology.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{goldman2013grading, author = {Goldman, Gretchen and Bailin, Deborah and Renaud, Alexander and Rogerson, Paul and Grifo, Francesca}, title = {{Grading Government Transparency}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2013}, month = mar, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/grading-government-transparency-methodology.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }