
On Aug. 29, 2019, then-Acting NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs briefs President Trump on the projected path of Hurricane Dorian.
(Image credit – Shealah Craighead / The White House)
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released an interagency report
The report responds to a memorandum
The “fast track” task force that produced the report was assembled
The task force was overseen by OSTP Deputy Director for Science and Society Alondra Nelson and OSTP Deputy Director for Climate and Environment Jane Lubchenco. In their foreword to the report, which is also signed by OSTP Director Eric Lander, they highlight five principles for scientific integrity that add to the earlier six:
Nelson, Lubchenco, and Lander state that the new principles are distilled from the task force’s findings and will be used to “guide OSTP’s ongoing assessment and coordination of federal scientific integrity policy.” The report adds that OSTP will now set to work on a plan
On Aug. 29, 2019, then-Acting NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs briefs President Trump on the projected path of Hurricane Dorian.
(Image credit – Shealah Craighead / The White House)
The task force concludes that federal science “remains fundamentally sound” and that the number of reported violations of scientific integrity policies is relatively small, but asserts such violations can severely erode public trust and the morale of federal scientists.
It offers three examples from the Trump administration: the posting of pandemic guidance documents to the CDC’s website without the agency’s approval
The Hurricane Dorian incident was already the subject of an independent review
NOAA, which is housed within the Commerce Department, did not take punitive actions following the review but did recommend
The task force report notes that while agencies are generally able to deal with integrity violations resulting from research mismanagement or misconduct, many are ill-prepared to deal with interference from senior leadership or those who use or communicate science. In the case of the Hurricane Dorian incident, the report states, “The officials who could have imposed [punitive] actions were the very people who had instructed that the offenders take the wrongful actions.”
As a remedy, the task force suggests ways of instilling a culture of scientific integrity within agency leadership. For instance, it recommends political appointees be required to attest they understand the scientific integrity policy and received training on it, and that this information be made publicly available on the agency’s website.
Acknowledging that such measures would “fall short of comprehensive solutions” to preventing political interference, it also calls for a government-wide effort to establish “additional and enforceable protections for those who report allegations of scientific integrity violations.” In addition, it states there should be “clear consequences for senior officials who knowingly violate scientific integrity policies.”
Together, the good practices identified by the task force span all stages in the conduct and use of research, from the collection of data to the communication and application of results.
For instance, concerning the conduct of science, it suggests agencies disclose study plans early in the research process and promptly release associated data and code, both to aid in the detection of any manipulations to the study and to foster greater trust. It also recommends agencies establish formal procedures for handling disagreements among scientists, pointing to a process
Addressing the use of science, the report draws a distinction between “science-based” decisions, such as in designating endangered species in accord with law, and “science-informed” decisions, where many other factors are at play, such as economic costs or equity considerations. It also distinguishes between legitimate forms of intervention, such as a policymaker not following a scientific recommendation due to the associated costs of the action, versus political interference, which might involve the deliberate mischaracterization of evidence.
Image credit – Scientific Integrity Fast-Track Action Committee
The task force observes that the likelihood of certain violations is apt to vary considerably based on the character of the agency in question. Those with strong regulatory roles, such as EPA, will likely face a broader set of integrity challenges than those that primarily fund research, such as NIH or the National Science Foundation.
In addition, the report addresses various subjects that have come to the fore in recent years, such as how integrity policies should account for expanded use of social media and the potential for emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence to bias research results. It also identifies citizen science and community-engaged research as “emerging modes of science” that require attention in integrity policies and can be helpful in building trust in federal science.
Reflecting on how integrity policies can support the priorities of addressing inequities in science, the report highlights that USGS is updating its scientific integrity policy to place a high priority on investigating potential violations that “have a disproportionate impact on underrepresented groups.”