How Can We Defend Government Science from Political Interference?
The Equation Read More [[{“value”:”
With the 2024 presidential election less than two months away, the election’s outcome will likely have a profound effect on the ability of federal agencies to use science-based decisionmaking to protect communities across the US. Whoever the next president is, one thing is clear – a presidential administration that fails to uphold the principles of scientific integrity and allows politics to undermine science will end up endangering the health and safety of thousands, perhaps millions.
Today, we are publishing a new report, entitled “Protecting Government Science from Political Interference: A Blueprint for Defending Scientific Integrity and Safeguarding the Public.” It provides a series of strong recommendations that the next presidential administration can and should adopt to strengthen the state of scientific integrity at federal agencies.
In the report, I also analyzed how scientific integrity policies are currently being implemented at agencies. Overall, the results suggest that there are some serious gaps in the protection of science at agencies. While the current administration has racked up some impressive wins in strengthening scientific integrity policies and procedures at federal agencies, this report provides evidence that many agencies are woefully ill-prepared to implement some of the most basic and fundamental aspects of these scientific integrity policies.
Science is at the heart of how our government functions. Federal agencies use robust research every single day to protect the health and safety of millions of people. For instance, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maps out the path of hurricanes and issues evacuation warnings for those living in the areas predicted to be hit; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses data from hospitals to monitor infectious diseases and will raise the alarm to stop the spread of dangerous pathogens; and even the Department of State (DOS) uses science to help inform foreign policies that help the United States remain competitive in a globalized world.
Since at least the 1950s, some political leaders from both Democratic and Republican administrations have chosen to politically interfere with science-based processes at federal agencies. Importantly, these violations of scientific integrity can have disproportionate effects on Black, Indigenous, people of color (BIPOC) communities, low-income communities, and other historically marginalized populations, resulting in even greater inequalities and inequities.
We’ve witnessed hundreds of examples of politics undermining government science in ways that are deeply distressing. For instance, political leaders have buried reports or edited out the scientific content on topics as varied as endangered species, mercury emissions from power plants, fuel efficiency, voter fraud, coal mining, the socioeconomic benefits of accepting refugees, tipping for waiters, PFAS chemicals, formaldehyde, sex trafficking in Indigenous communities, pesticide effects on endangered species, climate change, flooding risks in New York and New Jersey, COVID-19, Russian security threats in US elections, renewable energy, and fatal truck collisions with pedestrians and cyclists.
And this is just a truncated list. CSD’s attacks on science database has 326 examples across the last four presidential administrations.
In the full report, I tried to determine how easy it would be for a federal scientist who witnessed a possible attack on science in their agency to access information on scientific integrity. Would they be able to find the policy, connect with their scientific integrity official, or learn how investigations into potential violations occurred in the past? It may sound simple, but establishing a strong culture of defending science fundamentally depends on having these types of transparent practices.
I examined 38 federal agencies to examine how well they were doing on three simple metrics: 1) the publication of a recently updated scientific integrity policy, 2) the designation of a scientific integrity official, including a straightforward way to contact them, and 3) the annual reporting of the number of and outcomes of investigations into potential scientific integrity violations. All agencies are required to carry out these actions in a public and timely manner, as stipulated under President Biden’s 2021 memorandum and the White House’s 2023 framework on scientific integrity.
These 38 federal agencies were chosen for one simple reason: each agency was associated with at least one public example of an attack on science in the past 20 years. These are the agencies that know from experience the cost that attacks on science can have, including the public losing trust in their governmental institutions. One study from February 2022 found that the public’s reported trust in federal, state, and local public health agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic was largely dependent on whether people felt that agencies made clear, science-based recommendations that were not influenced by politics.
Out of 38 agencies examined, 71 percent (27 agencies) received overall scores of either “poor” or “worst.” Thirteen percent (five agencies) received overall scores in the categories of “best” and “good.” For a list of the acronyms, see Tables 2 and 3 in the report and the appendix. Source: Union of Concerned Scientists
Overall, the vast majority of the agencies examined (27 out of 38; 71 percent) obtained final scores that showed low, or in some cases non-existent, compliance with the requirements of the 2021 memorandum.
Agencies were graded more positively if they solicited public comments on a draft version of their scientific integrity policy. As I’ve written before, public comments are a crucial mechanism through which members of the public can have a direct say in the decisions our government is making. Shockingly, among the hundreds of agencies in the federal government, only five agencies decided to carry out this important step.
The worst-performing agencies also included some large agencies that regularly engage in scientific activities as part of their fundamental duties, such as Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), US Army Corps of Engineering, and the Department of the Treasury.
The top-scoring agencies in our analysis were NOAA, Department of the Interior (DOI), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Agriculture (USDA), and US Geological Survey (USGS).
Two interesting examples of low-performing agencies: the CDC and the White House both scored low and have some of the highest number of attacks on science in our database.
For more information on the methodology and the findings, please see the full report.
In our highly political climate, it is important to understand that a commitment to protect scientific integrity across the federal government is not a partisan issue. The goal of basing our nation’s policy decisions on the best, most up-to-date, and reliable scientific information, derived independently and unfettered by political interference, deserves overwhelming bipartisan support.
Since science is an important part of how our government fulfills its duty to its people, strong scientific integrity protections at federal agencies are necessary for good governance. Our full report, “Protecting Government Science from Political Interference,” lays out a list of important recommendations that will help protect scientific integrity. These include:
increasing training opportunities on scientific integrity
establishing scientific clearance procedures that are clear, consistent, transparent and predictable
protecting employees against retaliation when they report or investigate scientific integrity violations or whistleblower accounts
ensuring that each agency publishes an annual report on the state of scientific integrity
monitoring the implementation and enforcement of scientific integrity policies
“}]]