SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
scientific integrity
Biden’s Imploding Scientific Integrity Initiative
It is difficult to see what about this administration's policy would prevent a return to the reign of “alternative facts” should Trump be reelected.
Oct 06, 2023
Following the tumultuous Trump years when scientific fact and fiction often clashed, President Joe Biden resolved to strengthen federal protections against suppression or alteration of government science. Just days after his inauguration, he issued an all-agency directive to bolster the scientific integrity policies that had proven so useless in stemming the abuses of Trump and his appointees.
This effort was launched under the hopeful banner of “Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity.” Now, months behind schedule, the first revamped scientific integrity policy crafted under this initiative is rolling out. Unfortunately, it leaves a lot to be desired.
If finalized, this revised policy would cover thousands of scientists and technical analysts working within the behemoth $1.7 trillion Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), which spans a dozen divisions and includes nine separate public health agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, and Food & Drug Administration.
It will also likely serve as the template for new policies that are supposed to be adopted in all other federal agencies doing scientific work. Distressingly, among other shortcomings, this draft policy:
- Fails to prevent political interference with no provision for independent investigation of allegations of misconduct or sanctions for meddling by political appointees;
- Lacks any meaningful legal protections for scientists doing controversial work that may conflict with an agency’s political agenda;
- Contains few safeguards against scientific work being altered or suppressed, such as defined clearance procedures for approving technical publications or presentations;
- Does not apply to grantees and, in agencies such as the NIH, much of the scientific work is done under grants; and
- Does not allow public scrutiny of conflict of interest waivers granted to industry members of federal advisory committees, allowing these key scientific bodies to be stacked with little outside scrutiny. First Biden Scientific Integrity Policy Falls Well Short (peer.org)
Under this proposed policy, every aspect of enforcing scientific integrity principles would remain a captive of the political process inside the agencies. Thus, it is difficult to see what about this policy would prevent a return to the reign of “alternative facts” should Trump be reelected. Moreover, in the unlikely event that it did prove restrictive, a reelected Trump could simply rescind it, just as he did so many other Obama-era policies.
One core problem was the White House “framework” for this policy, issued earlier this year. Ths framework was composed largely by the same agency scientific integrity officers who presided over the Obama-era policies which had proven so ineffectual under Trump.
As a result, the organizing principle behind both the HHS draft and the White House framework appears to be bureaucratic self-protection. That explains the lack of transparency pervasive throughout the draft HHS policy which, tellingly, stipulates that “all descriptions of investigations and appeals will be anonymized.”
How is public trust in the credibility of government science supposed to be enhanced by closed-door investigations overseen by officials named by political appointees and reported to the public only in “anonymized” versions?
Perhaps one reason for these disappointing results is that it was overseen by the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy. Before the work had barely begun, the OSTP Director was forced to resign for bullying his staff. That left the reins for this project of an OSTP Deputy Director who last year was sanctioned by the National Academy of Sciences for misconduct and barred from participating in its publications and activities for five years.
Consequently, agencies were allowed to write scientific integrity rules in the most self-serving fashion possible. This, in turn, means that agencies will invoke scientific integrity principles only when it is politically convenient—an arrangement that defeats the entire purpose of this elaborate scientific integrity policy formulation effort.
Preventing this unfolding implosion propelled by institutional self-interest will require that the Biden brain trust radically change course. Rather than pursuing this murky agency-by-agency approach, the White House should impose government-wide rules that would:
- Create uniform interagency review and appeal processes for scientific misconduct allegations, such that individual agencies can no longer control investigations and sequester the results.
- Set uniform penalties for scientific integrity violations and require that political appointees found responsible for violations be publicly identified.
- Establish uniform clearance policies so that scientific material cannot be withheld from publication for other than technical reasons with enforceable appeal procedures to prevent research papers from being held in extended limbo.
There is no plausible reason why scientists in different agencies should be treated differently or have different rights. These government-wide rules would not only drive significant change but would also surmount the bureaucratic strategies where ground-breaking science is often strangled. Further, it may encourage Congress to codify these safeguards so that they may not be wiped summarily wiped out by a succeeding president.
Simply put, restoring trust in government science requires the ability of the public to verify that its trust is merited.
Keep ReadingShow Less
White House Censorship in the Name of Scientific Integrity
There is good reason to fear that a new Biden administration policy will create a broad chilling effect on scientific work involving hot button topics, such as birth control, climate change, and fetal tissue research. We must do better.
Sep 27, 2023
Laurance J. Peter, author of the “Peter Principle” that theorized in any hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his or her level of incompetence, once remarked that “Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status.” This ingrained institutional resistance to change often induces bureaucracies to seek to suppress facts that challenge underlying assumptions of the current political agenda.
So, it was distressing to see the Biden White House issue a “Model Scientific Integrity Policy” earlier this year containing a provision that would forbid any federal from scientist “making or publishing” any statements “that could be construed as being judgments of, or recommendations on,” any federal policy without permission. It was doubly ironic that this new prohibition is contained in the section that purports to promote transparency and the “free flow of scientific information.”
This provision was based upon a similar bar contained within the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s scientific integrity policy adopted in 2014. USDA’s is the only federal scientific integrity policy with such a prohibition.
USDA has used this provision mainly to assuage concerns expressed by agrochemical companies and other “stakeholders.” In this regard, this provision has been invoked to order a staff entomologist to remove his name from a peer-reviewed journal article on how monoculture farming reduces diversity in insect populations, thus limiting beneficial pollinators. That same provision was also cited as the basis for barring a scientist from speaking at a conference about the effects on pollinators from genetically modified crops and the insecticides used to treat them. That scientist later resigned in frustration after concluding that groundbreaking research would be impossible to pursue inside USDA.
Unfortunately, the early indications are that with White House support, other agencies will adopt this gag order in their scientific integrity policies. This summer, the Department of Health & Human Services proposed to add this prohibition in its policy. It is now in its final stage of approval, meaning that it may soon apply across the entire $1.7 trillion HHS, its 12 divisions, and nine separate public health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health, and Food & Drug Administration. Altogether, these agencies have roughly 78,000 employees, most of whom perform scientific or technical work that would be covered by the new policy.
There is good reason to fear that this new policy will create a broad chilling effect on scientific work involving hot button topics, such as birth control, climate change, and fetal tissue research. For example, a far more limited Congressional ban on the use of research funds “to advocate or promote gun control” caused the CDC to cease all gun violence research for more than 20 years until that legislative language, called the Dickey Amendment, was finally narrowed in 2019. Applying a broad prohibition on anything that “could be construed as” a comment or recommendation on any federal policy in all research at HHS would be tantamount to putting the Dickey Amendment on steroids.
It is especially galling that a ban on discussing the implications of research is part of a scientific integrity policy.
The further irony is that the Biden directive driving the revision of all federal scientific integrity policies was motivated by the censorship and suppression of science that occurred during the Trump years, during which the current scientific integrity policies inaugurated under President Obama proved useless. It does not take much imagination to envision how this Biden-sponsored language could be weaponized during a DeSantis or second Trump presidency.
Rather than serving any explicit political agenda from the White House or HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, this provision appears to be the product of mid-level bureaucrats seeking to maintain some control of the clearance process for research publications. Under the guise of scientific integrity, the bureaucratic need to control information appears to have prevailed in the construction of a new generation of federal policies.
It is especially galling that a ban on discussing the implications of research is part of a scientific integrity policy. Scientific research with policy implications is often most at risk of suppression or political manipulation – and thus in greater need of protection rather than condemnation.
Nonetheless, this prohibition on statements that could be perceived as a comment or recommendation on any federal policy may spread across a score of agencies that are now in the process of revising their scientific integrity policies. It is easily foreseeable that this provision could be used to punish scientists or stifle research deemed controversial, such as –
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency research showing that toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” or other pollutants are penetrating our food chain due to inadequate regulatory or enforcement policies;
- Research showing that dangerous viruses and other pathogens are at risk of release from U.S. Geological Survey wildlife research laboratories due to the absence of independent biosafety reviews; or
- Studies showing that water quality degradation and desertification are increasing across Western rangelands due to overgrazing on Bureau of Land Management livestock allotments.
On top of everything else, such a prohibition is patently unconstitutional as applied to government scientists speaking or writing as private citizens, since the public interest in the issue would almost always outweigh any potential disruption of efficient government operations.
Even if expressing these views is legally protected, government scientists should not need to cast a profile in courage to discuss the implications of their research openly. Federal bureaucracies do not need more opportunities to quash controversial findings or dissenting views. The Biden White House should pull the plug on this ill-considered restriction.Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Admin Scientific Integrity Policy Falls Short, Warn Watchdogs
"Nothing about this proposed policy would prevent a return to the reign of 'alternative facts' should Trump be reelected," said one critic.
Sep 05, 2023
A coalition of public health and science advocacy groups on Tuesday called on the Biden administration to strengthen its proposed scientific integrity policy, warning that the proposal does little to solve the problem of the political interference that was rampant in the federal government under former Republican President Donald Trump.
Shortly after taking office, President Joe Biden signed an executive order pledging to "protect scientists from political interference and ensure they can think, research, and speak freely to provide valuable information and insights to the American people," followed by a requirement for federal agencies to review how such interference can be avoided through policy changes.
More than two years later, the White House Office of Science and Data Policy joined the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in releasing a draft policy which, if finalized, would cover all scientists working within the department and could serve as a template for other federal agencies.
But without provisions for independent investigations into alleged misconduct, legal protections for scientists doing certain types of work, and with "few safeguards against scientific work being altered or suppressed," the coalition said the draft "leaves a lot to be desired."
"Scientific integrity problems at HHS have ranged from unwarranted age restrictions on emergency contraception during the Obama administration to halting important research and interfering with Covid-19 guidance during the Trump administration."
Groups including Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the Government Accountability Project, and the Center for Reproductive Rights wrote to the administration to warn that both Democratic and Republican administrations have stood in the way of scientific integrity, calling for vigilance from the Biden White House.
"Scientific integrity problems at HHS have ranged from unwarranted age restrictions on emergency contraception during the Obama administration to halting important research and interfering with Covid-19 guidance during the Trump administration," wrote the groups in their public comments on the policy. "HHS should design its scientific integrity policy to provide protections against such meddling and effective avenues for correction when interference occurs. HHS should also consider the possibility of individuals acting in bad faith using the policy to harass scientists who are doing their jobs, and HHS should erect barriers to such bad-faith attempts."
The groups listed a number of areas in which they believe the new draft policy is lacking, including:
- Protections and accountability for grantees;
- Specifics that delineate scientists' ability to communicate with the media and public about their areas of expertise, without leaving scientists vulnerable to bad-faith attacks;
- Specific protections from retaliation for those engaged in certain scientific activities; and
- Penalties sufficient to deter wrongdoing and hold accountable all violators of scientific integrity, including political appointees.
PEER pointed out that the lack of specific guidance for grantees is a "major gap" in the policy, as much of the scientific work at agencies such as the National Institutes of Health is completed by scientists who receive grants.
The group's comments notes that the right-wing Trump administration canceled teen pregnancy prevention grants and terminated federally funded research using fetal tissue, yet the policy draft does not include "specific protections against early termination of both research and service grants for political reasons."
The policy's "'Protecting Scientific Processes' section could include a prohibition against terminating intramural or extramural research funding for reasons other than breach of contract, abusive behavior, or gross mismanagement," the groups said.
"Nothing about this proposed policy would prevent a return to the reign of 'alternative facts' should Trump be reelected," said Pacific PEER director Jeff Ruch. "Under this proposed policy, every aspect of enforcing scientific integrity principles would remain a captive of the political process inside the agencies."
The policy also includes "the extremely broad statement that HHS scientists 'shall refrain from making or publishing statements that could be construed as being judgments of, or recommendations on, HHS or any other federal government policy,'" reads the letter. "A bad-faith actor seeking to harass a scientist whose work they find distasteful could claim to have 'construed' virtually any statement as a judgment of government policy."
"For instance," the groups added, "a scientist who makes a factual statement about the effect of a policy—for instance, explaining how a Trump administration directive to stop procuring fetal tissue halted work on an HIV study—could be accused of criticizing that policy decision. We recommend that HHS remove this text from its scientific integrity policy to avoid creating a weapon for bad-faith actors."
The watchdogs applauded the administration for taking steps to protect government scientists from retaliation, "rather than relying on existing whistleblower protections alone."
But the policy, they said, should include language assuring scientists that they can work "free from reprisal or concern for reprisal" and should "specifically provide protections against blocklisting/blacklisting and retaliatory investigations and offer an affirmative defense to whistleblowers who are subjected to civil or criminal lawsuits."
When Biden announced an overhaul of scientific integrity policies to protect scientists in 2021, groups including PEER said the move was a "welcome change from the Trump administration."
On Tuesday, however, Ruch warned that "little about this proposed policy would restore public faith in the credibility of government science."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular