Meanwhile . . . .

Over at the U.S. EPA, it was revealed that contracts awarded and out for bid will pay outside public-relations consultants up to $5 million over five years to ghostwrite articles for publication in scholarly journals and magazines, polish the EPA web site and organize focus groups on how to improve the Agency’s image.

The contracts seek help from public relations agencies to, among other things, “provide research, writing and editing of Office of Research and Development articles for publications in scholarly journals and magazines.” Donald Kennedy, the editor of Science magazine and a former head of the Food and Drug Administration, said that he found the idea of a public relations firm ghostwriting for government scientists appalling. "If we knew that it had been written by someone who was not a scientist and submitted as though it were the work of a scientist, we wouldn’t take it,” Mr. Kennedy said. “But it’s conceivable that we wouldn’t know, if it was carefully constructed.”

Meanwhile, over in Congress, an inquiry was initiated by Representative Joe L. Barton of Texas, who heads the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, after two Canadians with no expertise in climate change published papers and opinions challenging a previous study that meshed modern data with evidence of past temperature, like variations in tree rings. The result was a curve showing little variation for nearly 1,000 years and then a sharp upward hook in recent decades.

Scientists and Democratic lawmakers have criticized the inquiry. Now a Republican Representative, Sherwood Boehlert of New York, chairman of the House Science Committee, has joined the critics, sending a letter to Rep. Barton calling the investigation “misguided and illegitimate”. Rep. Boehlert noted that other recent analyses have supported the main conclusion of the study - that the climate’s warming since the late 20th century appears to be significantly outside the bounds of natural variability. Rep. Boehlert said the effort “raises the specter of politicians opening investigations against any scientist who reaches a conclusion that makes the political elite uncomfortable.”

Several scientists dealing with climate and other contentious issues expressed concerns about Rep. Barton’s apparent presumption that Congress might reveal truths that the scientific process cannot. That sentiment was echoed in a letter sent to Rep. Barton by Ralph J. Cicerone, the new president of the National Academy of Sciences and one of the country’s leading atmospheric chemists. Dr. Cicerone said a Congressional investigation “is probably not the best way to resolve a scientific issue, and a focus on individual scientists can be intimidating.”

Meanwhile, over at the White House, President Bush said today that if anyone in his administration committed a crime in connection with the public leak of the identity of Valerie Plame, the wife of administration critic Joseph Wilson, that person will “no longer work in my administration.” Mr. Bush had previously said in 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed her identity. Today he added the qualifier that it would have be shown that a crime was committed.

The president did not respond directly to a reporter’s question on whether he disapproved of Rove’s telling a reporter that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA.

Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper said that the first he heard about Ms. Plame working for the CIA was a 2003 phone call with Karl Rove. But Rove has insisted (through lawyers) that he did not mention Ms. Plame by name, nor did he intend to “out” her. Cooper explains, “Did Rove leak Plame’s name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes.” Cooper recalled that Rove told him, “I've already said too much” after revealing that Ms. Plame was with the CIA.

Meanwhile, Democrats have called for Rove to be fired, on the basis that he violated a 1982 federal law that prohibits the deliberate exposure of the name of a CIA agent. “The statute does not require that the name be disclosed,” said Jeffrey H. Smith, a former general counsel for the CIA. “It just says that you cannot intentionally disclose any information identifying a covert agent.”