Federal agencies were required nearly a decade ago to implement scientific integrity policies to prevent agency officials from inappropriately influencing scientific research, but some agencies are still behind in enforcing and overseeing these policies, according to a July 17 report by the Government Accountability Office.
John Neumann, managing director of science, technology assessment and analytics at GAO, testified before the House Science Committee that some scientific agencies reviewed by GAO had not taken action in communicating integrity policies to staff, providing oversight and monitoring the performance of their policies, while the Department of Energy and NASA did not have documented procedures for addressing violations of scientific integrity policies.
"Too often policymakers want to keep scientists on a leash. Or worse, change scientific practices or outcomes to support predetermined policy positions. Political appointees suppress scientific reports on chemical toxicity, order staff to soften conclusions and worker safety problems, unethically change testing protocols on lead exposure and other chemical exposure and misrepresent scientists work on reproductive health. In that kind of closed culture, scientists keep their heads down, and we are robbed of their expertise,” said Michael Halpern, deputy director for the Center for Science & Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“Ultimately, we cannot depend on agencies to police themselves without additional direction and support.”
Though political appointees attempting to influence their agency’s scientific publications has been a concern across presidential administrations, Trump appointees have come under particular fire for restricting language about climate change at federal agencies and reassigning federal scientists.
“I was one of dozens of senior executives that were reassigned that night in what the media described as a ‘purge’ that sent a message to other career civil servants to keep their heads down on issues that run counter to the administration’s anti-science and pro-fossil fuel rhetoric,” said Joel Clement, arctic initiative senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School and former Department of Interior employee.
“At Interior, agency scientist are self-censoring their reports and deleting the term ‘climate change’ to avoid being targeted by political appointees; they are barred from speaking to reporters without advance permission from the agency; they face new barriers from attending the professional conferences that are part of the job; and their work is being incompletely reported to the public, if at all. Americans are not getting their money’s worth is these conditions persist.”
Roger Pielke Jr., director of the Sports Governance Center at the University of Colorado, said that he personally experienced political officials attacking his research.
Pielke was famously the subject of a six-page critique in 2014 by President Barack Obama’s Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren, who argued that Pielke’s statements on the lack of a relationship between increased drought and climate change were a mischaracterization of scientific consensus and research.
Rep. Paul Tonko, D-N.Y., introduced legislation in March 2019 that would codify certain elements of scientific integrity to prevent politicians from interfering in research by enabling scientists to more publicly discuss their work and limiting the amount of time agency leadership can hold a piece of research for review.
“The legislation would give scientists who work for the government and work for government agencies the right to share their research with the public, ensure that government communication of science is accurate and protect science and policy decisions from political interference,” said Halpern.
“The bill empowers federal employees also to share their expertise and opinions as informed experts in a personal capacity outside their government jobs. And the bill prohibits any employee from censoring or manipulating scientific findings.”
Jessie Bur covers federal IT and management.
