It takes a lot of gnarly weather to send your average Massachusetts resident into a depressive slump. But week after week of raw, cold air and relentless rain has left many of us sodden, shivering and frustrated. You might also wonder how this unseasonably bleak weather is affecting our ecosystem — say, the rejuvenation of flora or the return of various bird species. You might venture over to The Boston Globe, looking for answers from scientists. Unfortunately, you won’t find any. Gov. Charlie Baker doesn’t allow state scientists to talk with Globe reporters. This information was revealed this week in an alarming story from the Globe’s environmental reporter, David Abel. How does this censorship play out? In order to speak with local media, state scientists must obtain permission from a designated state public relations official. As Abel detailed, nearly every interview request he's made -- as well as those of many of his colleagues -- has instead been answered with a list of bulleted talking points from the administration. Abel says of the time, those talking points haven’t addressed the questions he wanted to ask state scientists.

Muzzling scientists betrays the public trust, and is a naked attempt to manipulate the science narratives that shape our lives.

“I have had the same experience reporting stories about ... mercury pollution, nuclear power, carbon emissions, etc,” Abel wrote. He continued: I ask questions and seek comment from our public officials, and the Baker administration routinely won’t allow them to speak to me ... They have made it clear that they won’t allow me, or many of my colleagues, to speak directly with the experts in government who can often best answer our questions — even when it’s a story about birds. We could talk about the irony of science censorship happening in a state renowned for its scientific industries and educational programs. But the far more serious problem is that muzzling scientists betrays the public trust, and is a surreptitious attempt to manipulate the science narratives that shape our lives. It has echoes of the way that Donald Trump's White House regularly stonewalls the press. (Sarah Huckabee Sanders hasn't even held a press briefing for the last two months.) And it begs the question: Why doesn't Baker want scientists talking to constituents without the filter of a press official? The best-case possibility is that the Baker administration wants to retain control over disseminating scientific intel to the public. This knee-jerk impulse for control has been repeated throughout history, especially when the controlled intel might cause panic, but that doesn’t make the practice acceptable — especially right now, when climate change poses a creeping danger to our communities and our ecosystem. If ever there were a time when the public could benefit from unfiltered dialogue between state scientists and the press, it’s today.

If ever there were a time when the public could benefit from unfiltered dialogue between state scientists and the press, it’s today.