Ten Steps That Can Restore Scientific Integrity in Government
By: Lauren Kurtz,Gretchen Goldman (Scientific American)
The problem is so glaringly obvious but is being willfully ignored. What does shortages of critical supplies have to do with science? Why did scientists so quickly dismiss anecdotal evidence concerning drugs that have been safely administered worldwide for decades?
Dr. Anthony Fauci is a virologist. Why should any President listen to Dr. Fauci's advice about manufacturing and distribution of vaccines? Manufacturing and logistics are outside Dr. Fauci's area of scientific expertise.
Just because a scientist is giving advice doesn't mean that has anything to do with science. Seeking advice from scientists about non-science issues would be stupid. And a scientist attempting to influence non-science activities has become a political player operating outside their sphere of expertise.
Scientists are assuming roles that are far removed from science. Scientists who demand their advice be followed on logistics, economics, infrastructure, and a variety of other non-science issues are not acting as scientists. That expansion of advisory role into non-science areas is what threatens scientific integrity.
Yes, scientists are people and are allowed to express opinions like anyone else. But those scientists are not acting as scientists; they're just someone with an opinion. Scientific integrity isn't about protecting or elevating the influence of non-science opinions expressed by scientists.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In May 2020, a scientist named Rick Bright, who was leading the COVID-19 vaccine development at the Department of Health and Human Services, filed a whistleblower complaint, alleging that he had faced retaliation for raising alarms about shortages of critical supplies and the president's promotion of potentially dangerous and unproven drug remedies for the virus. In October, he resigned, stating that he could no longer work for an administration that ignored scientific expertise, overruled public health guidance, and disrespected career scientists. His case now adds to the list of examples where federal scientific integrity infrastructure has failed our nation's scientists, especially in recent years.
Indeed, the Trump administration has censored, manipulated and hindered science at unprecedented rates. Recent disregard of the federal scientific enterprise has hampered our abilities to effectively respond to the crises that need scientific expertise the most, like the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, as well as other pressing issues like regulation of toxic chemicals, workplace safety and wildlife conservation.
At the same time, the vast majority of Americans trust scientists—so why don't we act like it? And why don't our policies reflect that?
One major reason is that our legal system has not caught up amidst the deepening politicization of science, so federal agency scientists like Bright have extremely limited options to protect scientific integrity from political manipulation. In particular, federal scientific integrity policies—designed to ensure that science informs policy decisions and is free from inappropriate political, ideological, financial, or other undue influence—are imperfect. Despite progress across agencies in the last decade, many agency policies are still missing key provisions and suffer from uneven enforcement.
These scientific integrity policies are largely products of the Obama administration, building upon earlier policies that prohibited plagiarism, data manipulation and other forms of research misconduct. Designed to prevent against abuses seen in previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, these policies represent a substantial stride forward, but there are still major holes. The last few years have illustrated that much more needs to be done to guarantee that federal scientific integrity can be protected even under tremendous political pressures.
Below are 10 recommendations for the Biden administration that would dramatically improve scientific integrity protections across agencies. The recommendations span from revising the policies themselves to strengthening other aspects of government.
- Clearly prohibit political interference and censorship. Unfortunately, a number of agency policies focus only on "traditional" areas of misconduct, such as plagiarism and data fraud, and do not even address censorship or other political interference. For example, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) are missing these critical provisions—which means that even the most blatant efforts to undermine science can go uncontested. If ever it was clear why protecting CDC and NIH science and scientists protects the public, surely it is the federal pandemic response.
- Similarly, protect scientists' communication rights. Scientists must have clear rights to speak directly to journalists and members of the public, including correcting agency communications that reference their work. Agencies vary widely in the sorts of communication rights that scientists have, which can lead to disastrous results—such as when the Trump administration successfully prevented scientists at the CDC (where scientists have weak communication rights) from speaking about the looming COVID-19 pandemic in February 2020. Preventing scientists from speaking directly to the public not only muzzles scientists but prevents the public from making informed decisions about their health and safety.
- Acknowledge that attempts to violate scientific integrity, even if ultimately not fruitful, are still violations. In one notable case, attempts to censor a climate report at the National Parks Service were found to be perfectly within the scientific integrity policy because the report was ultimately published intact. Meanwhile, the scientist who authored the study—and who had fought valiantly for publication—was terminated from her position. Imagine if attempted murder were not a crime, and only "successful" murders were prosecuted.
- Protect federal scientists' right to provide information to Congress and other lawmakers. There have been multiple examples of scientists involved in public health, climate change and environmental toxicology being prevented from providing information to Congress or being pressured to alter their testimony on important scientific topics. Our lawmakers need to hear from scientific experts, unaltered.
- Commit to incorporating the best science as part of agency decisions. Unfortunately, there are many examples, at the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies, where decisions completely ignored scientific findings. Agencies must recognize that ensuring the agency's credibility and effectiveness are an essential part of guaranteeing the science used in agency decision-making is robust and trustworthy.
- Elevate agency scientific integrity policies to have the full force of law, which could be done by passing the pending House Scientific Integrity Act. This act codifies many of the basic elements needed in an effective agency scientific integrity policy, including making clear that scientists have the right to appeal decisions regarding scientific integrity violations. These measures help guarantee that agency policies are actually enforced.
- Publicly release anonymized information about scientific integrity complaints and their resolutions at every agency. Many agencies currently do not publish even basic information about scientific integrity complaints, which makes it impossible to see the extent of any scientific integrity issues or even if the policies are working. Providing a window into how agencies have resolved prior complaints is critical for understanding how the policy works and ensuring that application is fair.
- Institute an intra-agency workforce, potentially under the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, to coordinate scientific integrity efforts across agencies, foster discussion of policy improvements, and standardize criteria for policies across agencies.
- Strengthen whistleblower protections: explicitly extend whistleblower laws to apply to scientific integrity complaints, expand whistleblower rights for scientific contractors and grantees, and reinstate quorum on the Merit Systems Protection Board (the main body that evaluates whistleblower complaints, which has been without the necessary quorum since January 2017). Doing so would ensure that scientists who speak up about scientific integrity violations no longer need to fear for their jobs.
- Ensure that policies cover all actors who will be dealing with science, including political appointees, public affairs departments and scientific advisory committee members. Unfortunately, many policies currently are unclear about who is covered, or exempt certain categories of workers—for example, it is not clear to what extent contractors are governed by the scientific integrity policy at the Department of Energy. Fixing these inconsistencies would remove confusion and loopholes, and would make clear that protecting scientific integrity is part of everyone's job.
When asked about what went wrong with the U.S. pandemic response, Bright recently said: "The career staff and scientists were in place. They were battle tested. They knew their role. They knew the plan. And they were prepared to act. They put on their uniform to respond to this pandemic and then there was nowhere to go." To ensure that scientists can do their job protecting the public in the next crisis, whether it be a pandemic, an earthquake or the climate crisis, we can and must ensure scientists' voices and work are shielded from political forces. Our lives and the nation's future depend on it.
Tags
Who is online
101 visitors
When is a scientist not a scientist? When is a scientist a politician? Scientists are assuming roles (and authoritative status) to advise on non-science issues. Just because a scientist expresses an opinion doesn't mean they are behaving as scientists. A scientist expressing a political opinion really has become a political activist.
The proposed steps to restore scientific integrity in government requires self regulation by the scientific community. Willfully ignoring that the scientific community is not regulating its own political activism makes the proposed steps dangerous.
Yeah scientists are human beings who can be wrong.
Follow the science does not mean follow the scientist. It means follow what can be demonstrated to be correct (as correct as humans can be).
As I like to say, follow the evidence to where it leads. Not to where you want it to go.
Which evidence is to be followed? A lot of scientists made public declarations that anecdotal evidence was of no value for decision making.
According to what we have observed, not all evidence is created equal. So, following the evidence to where it leads apparently isn't adequate.
Nit picking and missing the point in the process.
Gordy obviously does not mean that we should follow shitty / weak evidence. Use common sense Nerm. The principle that Gordy expressed is that the evidence is what determines truth; not what a scientist proclaims as truth because human beings can have biases and make errors. The evidence, properly attained and verified, approximates the truth far better than the mere word of a human being.
The guidelines we've been following to mitigate the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were developed for an influenza pandemic. The effectiveness of the guidelines were not verified, demonstrated, and certified for the SARS-CoV-2 virus (or even the SARS-CoV-1, MERS, or coronaviruses in general) before being issued. All along the advice being provided has been intended for an influenza pandemic.
We've been following the evidence for influenza. Evidence for influenza is anecdotal evidence in regards to the coronavirus pandemic.
That's the reality of the situation. So asking which evidence we should follow isn't nit picking.
Follow the evidence on which the hypothesis is based. This is obvious.
The evidence that pertains to the situation at hand.
Do we wait until something is demonstrated to be correct? Discovery would be hampered by only following what has been demonstrated.
If a scientist declares that a virus has a certain property which can be mitigated by a certain chemical, do we take the scientist at his/her word or do we demand that the scientist put forth the evidence and then verify same by repeating the experiments (and applying them in a broader scale) and analyzing the results?
Isn't that what the drug companies must do prior to releasing a new drug? Large scale testing?
If we cannot utilize a scientific development until it has been verified, demonstrated, and certified then why did the scientist make the declaration? Did the scientist make the declaration as a means to influence acquiring support and resources for their claim? Was the declaration science or politics?
The information obviously was anecdotal in nature and wasn't useful because the information had not been verified, demonstrated, and certified. According to what you are stating the scientist's declaration wasn't really useful evidence that could be followed in any meaningful manner.
Yes!! They do indeed. Good thing too, right?
Nerm I am not going to discuss silly hypotheticals with you.
This is very, very simple stuff. Cut and dried. Nothing to discuss.
It does not matter what a scientist claims; what matters is what the scientist can demonstrate.
Period. See?
Then how does that address restoring scientific integrity in government? Protecting the freedom of government scientists to make undemonstrated claims to the press would seem to undermine scientific integrity.
What responsibility does the scientific community have regarding scientists making speculative and undemonstrated claims to the public? Should the job of scientist become a licensed profession?
My comment has nothing do with government. I am talking about science. That is all.
Nobody should make unsubstantiated claims. Obviously. This includes scientists and every other professional making a claim.
No scientist should ever make speculative statements without stating clearly that these are speculative. Again this should be true for everyone (not just scientists).
Who should be responsible for regulating that behavior? Should the job of scientist become a licensed profession?
The medical community regulates itself through licensure. Bad behavior results in loss of license to practice medicine. The same is true for the legal profession.
Not quite. Licensure is regulated by the state. Behavior and practice is regulated by a board of ethics, state medical boards, and state laws. Actions which violate practice conduct or laws can result in licensure suspension and even revocation.
Depending on the state and field of profession, some scientists need to be licensed.
While not a manufacturer or distributor, a virologist like Fauci can and should make recommendations as to getting badly needed PPE to locations experiencing outbreaks. No one was asking Fauci to detail how it would get done, he simply relied on the science to say it was needed.
That's just a weak excuse for those who don't want to listen to good advice from scientists. The scientists have been acting as scientists, some just didn't want to listen so instead brought in yes men like brown nosing radiologist Atlas to tell them what they wanted to hear.
If you don't want to believe the science, then don't, that's your choice, but making up bullshit excuses for why you reject sound science based advice is a waste of time.
Emphasizing this
point.
The protocol has been to change PPE between patients to avoid spreading infection within a hospital. But when all the patients already have the same infection that protocol really doesn't have value. As an expert, Dr. Fauci should have been advising medical staff how to adjust protocols to the situation to avoid shortages of PPE.
Medical personnel aren't the only people who use PPE. People with expertise in other areas that require PPE possibly could have provided better advice that would have lessened or avoided shortages. There really are people who must work with more dangerous stuff than the coronavirus.
Dr. Fauci failed to use his expertise to scrutinize and adjust protocols. Instead Dr. Fauci relied upon his authoritative status as an expert to give advice that others may have been better suited to provide.
It's an interesting question that I don't think necessarily has a concrete answer. It may be necessary for different agencies to have unique policies.
My impulse is generally for openness and transparency. On the other hand, a scientist working for the government who speaks out will often be perceived as saying something "official" and that can create problems. Just as the lab coat conveys its own sense of reliability, so too, does the status of "government scientist."
Furthermore, while an individual scientist will have knowledge of the work he is personally doing, he may not be privy to related work other people are doing. He therefore may have an incomplete understanding of a larger problem and his speaking out can cause confusion.