Last weekend, the Diva did a posting titled What the Heck is This About, which dealt with the decision of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) to remove some reports about early disaster response activities from their website.
On March 16, a reporter at USA Today provided more details in a second article about the DHS OIG reports. See: FEMA’s response to Hurricane Maria won’t get initial review under watchdog agency’s new approach. Reporter Ledge King raised several issues that remain about the decisions made by the OIG, including how best to inform FEMA staff re progress with response efforts and how to provide documentation of response progress for those outside the agency interested in the disaster response process.
The Diva was pleased to be interviewed by the reporter to make the case on behalf of researchers and historians.
Diva- I’ve just spent the last 25 minutes trying unsuccessfully to find a recent article on the push to make it more difficult to use science in policy decisions. It dovetails a great deal with the steps that appear to be deployed in the article you were interviewed for.
The gist of the piece was that a number of legislators and political appointees are moving to exclude from decision making any science that can’t be replicated. This of course has a great many problems. Work in real world economics and disaster recovery in particular are often not replicable because there is no replicating a Katrina or a financial crisis. I bring this to your attention as it looks like you may have encountered a symptom of a wider problem.
As always, your tireless work is wonderful.
Thanks for the kind words.
I am interested in knowing more details about your search; feel free to send them to me directly via email.