[Goose]

It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.

-- Warren Buffett

One would hope that with competent management, the damage can be repaired, but a) the precedent having been set, the temptation to continue to meddle (whether by a Democratic or Republican administration) will remain high, and the willingness to accept meddling will continue and b) because of a, the next time that the CDC reports something that someone doesn't like through the MMWR, there will be a temptation to ask whether the data has been meddled with.

BC

I think we need to carefully separate the concept of "upper management" reviewing/having input into documents to be released by the CDC and the individuals who do the review. I think you will find that in most nations (e.g. Germany) the Health Minister (who is a politician) has input to and reviews documents originated by the technical people in his department. I am sure that wording is often changed to be more clear, or more in line with the current government thinking. What does NOT happen is changing the basic meaning of the document. I am pretty sure that has been common at the CDC as well. The difference in the past was that the technical people and the politicians understood their roles, and respected the boundaries. If the technical people said "No, that change changes the meaning of what we are trying to say", the change didn't happen. The technical people may have to convince the politicians by explaining why it has to remain as is. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. If the technical argument isn't compelling, maybe some more thinking is needed. The difference is the politicians were trying to be "good stewards" of the department, not acolytes of the current POTUS. IMHO the process isn't broken. Back and forth between management and nerds is normal. What isn't normal is when management isn't acting in the best interest of the USA, but rather the self-defined political best interests of the POTUS. The people involved are "broken".

[Goose]

It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.

-- Warren Buffett

One would hope that with competent management, the damage can be repaired, but a) the precedent having been set, the temptation to continue to meddle (whether by a Democratic or Republican administration) will remain high, and the willingness to accept meddling will continue and b) because of a, the next time that the CDC reports something that someone doesn't like through the MMWR, there will be a temptation to ask whether the data has been meddled with.

BC

I think we need to carefully separate the concept of "upper management" reviewing/having input into documents to be released by the CDC and the individuals who do the review. I think you will find that in most nations (e.g. Germany) the Health Minister (who is a politician) has input to and reviews documents originated by the technical people in his department. I am sure that wording is often changed to be more clear, or more in line with the current government thinking. What does NOT happen is changing the basic meaning of the document. I am pretty sure that has been common at the CDC as well. The difference in the past was that the technical people and the politicians understood their roles, and respected the boundaries. If the technical people said "No, that change changes the meaning of what we are trying to say", the change didn't happen. The technical people may have to convince the politicians by explaining why it has to remain as is. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. If the technical argument isn't compelling, maybe some more thinking is needed. The difference is the politicians were trying to be "good stewards" of the department, not acolytes of the current POTUS. IMHO the process isn't broken. Back and forth between management and nerds is normal. What isn't normal is when management isn't acting in the best interest of the USA, but rather the self-defined political best interests of the POTUS. The people involved are "broken".