The degree of your partisanship is nothing short of legendary.
Which political party is he stumping for? Disagreeing with a government policy doesn't make someone a partisan. If that's what you think it means, you need to check a dictionary.
The bit about NDAs is a red herring, and nullified by a simple example. If a government scientist publishes a paper in a journal, then it's
not confidential information. That's why my employer doesn't publish papers on our work, even though we have one project which would be a huge impact paper. But we are commercializing it, so publishing it would surely destroy our claims to intellectual property.
The article in the OP is talking about the government stopping scientists from speaking to the public. Kristi Miller, published a paper, in a very controversial topic. The government then refused to allow her to explain it. Now whether or not you are on one side or the other of her topic, by refusing to allow an expert who wrote the paper to explain it to the public, the government is inviting people and journalists to interpret it for themselves. It's an invitation to misinformation.
I'd really love to hear what the rational explanation is for a policy that will produce public misinformation, when there is no confidentiality claim to be made.
