
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) speaking at the March for Science event in Albany, New York, in 2017.
(Image credit – Office of Rep. Tonko)
On July 17, the House Science Committee convened a hearing
Opening the hearing, Research and Technology Subcommittee Chair Haley Stevens (D-MI) insisted
Nonetheless, partisan politics loomed over the proceedings. In her opening statement, Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee Chair Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) spotlighted
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) speaking at the March for Science event in Albany, New York, in 2017.
(Image credit – Office of Rep. Tonko)
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), the lead sponsor of the Scientific Integrity Act in the House, noted in his own opening statement
One of the hearing’s witnesses, Joel Clement, testified
Clement asserted that his and others’ sudden reassignment “sent a message for other career civil servants to keep their heads down on issues that run counter to the Trump administration’s anti-science and pro-fossil-fuel rhetoric.” Next Thursday, the House Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing
Another witness, Michael Halpern, a senior official at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), an advocacy organization, stated
“The surveys that we have done at federal agencies found hundreds and hundreds of scientists reporting either being told not to talk about climate change or self-censoring and deciding they’re not going to step into that space to begin with,” he said.
A third witness, Roger Pielke Jr., who is a science policy scholar at the University of Colorado Boulder, observed
In April, the Government Accountability Office released a report
Norman noted that, although GAO audited EPA as part of its examination, the agency was not identified as among those needing improvements. He suggested that committee Democrats’ attention to EPA, and their unsuccessful attempt
Clement, Halpern, and Pielke all said that scientific integrity policies are important but not infallible methods of protecting scientific integrity at agencies.
For instance, Clement noted that in analyzing policy implementation GAO’s report “barely scratched the surface of the dysfunction” that he says exists. He urged that, in addition to implementing such policies and the Scientific Integrity Act, it is also necessary to pursue “broader ethics, integrity, and anti-corruption measures.”
Pielke stressed that amid the vast body of science that exists, decisions to highlight or not highlight any given study in agency communications will necessarily be “influenced by politics, including which studies support the agency’s or administration’s policy goals.” He suggested that, since “rigorous assessments” are a more important avenue for conveying scientific results than individual studies, legislative attention should be directed toward the integrity of bodies that produce such assessments. In addition, he urged, “Elected officials or political appointees should not use their positions to go after individual scientists or studies.”
Although none of the witnesses regarded policies as a guarantee of scientific integrity, they did see enshrining integrity standards in law as an important step.
Halpern said such codification is necessary because it helps prevent policies from being rolled back and provides recourse if they are violated. He also lauded a particular provision in the Scientific Integrity Act that ensures federal scientists may speak with the media about their research, saying that such communication has become increasingly difficult.
Clement agreed that codification could help whistleblowers overcome the intimidation presented by a “hostile leadership situation.” He also pointed to the importance of the scientific integrity officers that the bill would require agencies to hire. He said employees have places to turn for complaints about civil rights violations, sexual harassment, and threats to public health and safety, but not necessarily scientific integrity. “Right now, you really have an unreliable process,” he said.
Pielke said scientific integrity policies are needed because “science and matters of scientific integrity have become increasingly popular arenas for partisan battles.” He urged that legislation place integrity under congressional oversight and help standardize definitions, policies, and procedures across federal agencies. He also recommended improvements to the Scientific Integrity Act, suggesting the sponsors sharpen its definitions of scientific integrity and consider including language covering congressional testimony.
In general, all the witnesses and committee members agreed that scientific integrity should be protected from partisan politics. However, although the Scientific Integrity Act currently has 199 cosponsors, all of them are Democrats.
Pointing to the bill’s large number of Democratic sponsors, Norman speculated, “Perhaps that’s because my colleagues across the aisle had no interest in gaining bipartisan support,” adding, “Fortunately, there is ample room for improving communication and deliberation moving forward.” Tonko, for his part, insisted he has “reached across the aisle many times over.”
Pielke pointed out near the end of the hearing that scientific integrity policies represent “a new tool with which to have oversight over the executive branch,” and would at any given point “hit one party or the other.” He concluded, “But this is where I think the interests of Congress have to outweigh the party affiliation, which makes it so difficult.”