FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Jeff Ruch (510) 213-7028 jruch@peer.org
Biden Fails to Safeguard Federal Science from Trump
Vaunted 3+ Year “Scientific Integrity” Initiative Limps Across Finish Line
Washington, DC — A government-wide effort to strengthen agency scientific integrity policies launched by President Biden days after his inauguration to “restore public trust” following the Trump years has reached its coda, according to a White House report. Yet, a review by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) indicates these policies remain largely unchanged, and none feature effective protections against future outbreaks of politicized “alternate facts,” while some contain provisions that make scientific censorship easier.
Scientific integrity policies promulgated early in the Obama administration proved so toothless that even notorious Trump appointees, such as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt, could embrace them, knowing they would not impede manipulation or suppression of research. In directing these policies be beefed up, the Biden White House neglected a crucial first step: identifying the source of the problem. Instead, it relied upon a “task force” of holdover agency Scientific Integrity Officers who were reluctant to examine their own records critically and, as a result, failed to pinpoint what precisely needed to be fixed.
Without a diagnosis of the problem, the 18 newly revised agency scientific policies differ little from their predecessors; while another 9 policies have still not been finalized. Several new policies contain features making them even more vulnerable to scientific misconduct, such as –
- Unreviewable control by agency functionaries with unfettered discretion as to which complaints of integrity transgressions will be heard, how they will be investigated, and by whom. None of the policies specify penalties for political appointee violators;
- Complete confidentiality on complaint processing with only an annual after-the-fact “anonymized” summary of actions available to the public; and
- Expansion of bans against any scientist “making or publishing statements that could be construed as being judgments of, or recommendations on” any federal policy. This gag order was in the original Agriculture Department policy, at the behest of agribusiness. It was both readopted by USDA and has now spread to the National Institutes for Health and the Social Security Administration, agencies with some 165,000 full-time employees. Notably, proposed similar gag language was abandoned by the Department of Health & Human Services, as well as the Consumer Product Safety Commission policies.
“Agencies which forbid scientists from discussing potential policy implications of their research reveal they are more concerned with bureaucratic self-protection than scientific quality,” stated PEER Pacific Director Jeff Ruch, who has represented federal scientists confronting issues for more than 30 years, noting that NIH’s speech ban is so broad the agency even added a footnote stipulating it does not apply to legally protected statements, such as whistleblower disclosures. “Overall, the Biden scientific integrity initiative deserves a failing grade.”
In addition to the frailties of the 18 policies adopted, several major agencies, including EPA and Centers for Disease Control, have yet to finish their revisions. Moreover, 20 of 27 agencies have not completed training materials while 26 of the 27 have not finalized standards for assessment.
“At the current rate of progress, implementation of these safeguards may be up to the very new Trump officials they are meant to deter,” added Ruch. “As things stand now, federal agencies are still largely free to fabricate their own set of facts.”
###
Revisit nonexistent EPA scientific integrity program under Trump
Review myopic Biden 2022 Task Force report
Look at examples of weaknesses in scientific integrity policies
See NOAA policy featuring maximum confidentiality
Note perverse effects of gag orders embedded in scientific integrity policies
Read the gag provisions in USDA, NIH, and SSA policies
Contrast PEER recommendations for uniform government-wide rules