Under attack for leaving whistleblowers out to dry, NASA has tentatively signaled that it’s open to changing its policies.

“We believe that strongly enforcing existing protections is not something to be embarrassed about,” said NASA spokesperson Bob Jacobs. “That said, if NASA’s science community wants to consider the pros and cons of advancing additional protections, we would not discourage such a process.”

Though Jacobs’ words are restrained, they represent a change in NASA’s position towards criticisms raised after their new science integrity plan was publicized by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a government watchdog group.

NASA sent its plan to the White House in response to a 2009 call for policies to explicitly protect federal scientists from financial and political pressures. During the Bush administration, such interferences distorted scientific information and fact-gathering efforts on dozens of issues (.pdf), from stem cells to the safety of drinking rocket fuel-tainted water.Political appointees altered reports on NASA’s climate research.

Following an August 5 deadline, NASA and 18 other agencies and departments submitted their drafts. Despite the administration’s focus on transparency, however, only five were made public. NASA’s plans were highlighted August 15 by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER.

According to NASA, their plan — a 10-page memo (.pdf) devoted mostly to describing existing policies — reflected the fact that those policies already protect scientific integrity. But PEER and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a U.S.-based science advocacy group, find the plans lacking in protection for whistleblowers. NASA leans entirely on the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, which lawmakers later expanded in 1994; since then whistleblowers have been favored in only 3 of 206 cases filed in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

Those protections weren’t enough for NASA employees prior to the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board said the employees kept quiet for fear of reprisal by their bosses (.pdf).

“The Whistleblower Protection Act was a great policy when it came out, but it has been eroded and eroded and eroded,” said Francesca Grifo, a senior scientist at the UCS. “NASA needs to make a clear commitment to protect whistleblowers from retaliation.”

Grifo released to Wired.com new recommended wording for whistleblower protection policies (.pdf, page 35). The language attempts to close loopholes in the Whistleblower Protection Act. Under current legal precedents, whistleblowers can be fired or punished in retaliation, or have their cases dismissed for waiting too long to file complaints.

When confronted with general criticisms of current whistleblower protections, NASA initially stressed its adherence to the Whistleblower Protection Act. But pressed by Wired.com with the UCS recommendations, Jacobs gave the less-boilerplate response above: “We would not discourage such a process.”

Grifo said she’ll take any opening she can get on the matter. However, “the devil is in the details and to get to the details requires a conversation,” she said.

NASA’s final scientific integrity policy is now undergoing a formal review process closed to the public. It’s expected to be finalized before Oct. 31, 2011.

Image: Sharon Hall Shipp/Flickr

See Also: