House Science Subcommittees Issues Testimony From Union of Concerned Scientists
"My name is
"The
"A lack of protection for science makes it easier for the
"Since 2004, the
"I am thrilled to see that legislation to mandate the development of scientific integrity policies, H.R. 1709 the Scientific Integrity Act, is receiving a hearing today. We want to thank
"This testimony can be summarized as follows:
1. Political interference in science happens under all presidential administrations, although the recent level of attacks on science is unprecedented.
2. Scientific integrity standards are essential for government accountability, but current scientific integrity policies are insufficiently written, inadequately implemented, and vulnerable to being ignored or repealed by any administration.
3. The Scientific Integrity Act has support from a wide variety of organizations. With a few improvements, the legislation should make a real bipartisan advance that will broadly impact policymaking for the better. It should be passed and signed into law.
4. There are other steps that must be taken to strengthen the role of science in policymaking that are outside of the scope of this legislation and hearing. The legislation does not address all issues related to science-based policy-making and it should not attempt to do so.
5. This legislation is not directed at the actions of the current or any other administration. It is a good government effort that should transcend partisan politics.
Strong Scientific Integrity Standards Are Essential for Government Accountability
"
"In recent years, the definition of scientific integrity has been focused on ensuring that science produced and considered by the federal government is not censored or politically influenced, that this science fully informs public policy decisions, and that the public is more fully aware of the knowledge and data that are produced by federal scientists that pertains to policymaking.
"The importance of safeguarding scientific integrity within our federal government cannot be overstated. Science-informed decisions made by executive agencies have direct impacts on all of our lives. Whether those decisions are determining how safe or clean our waters are to drink, or our air to breathe, or whether certain species are deserving greater protections under law, four fundamental principles should be embraced:
1. Decisions should be fully informed by (but not necessarily proscribed by) science;
2. Scientists working for and advising the government should be unobstructed in providing scientific evidence to inform the decision-making process;
3. The public should have reasonable access to scientific information to be able to understand the evidentiary basis of public policy decisions; and
4. The public and
"Clearly, science is not the only factor that goes into many policy decisions. There are often many factors to consider. There are times, however, when determinations must be made solely on the best available scientific information. For example, current law requires the
The Scientific Integrity Act is Government Accountability Legislation that Prevents Political Interference in Science
"The attacks on science described in this testimony--including censorship and self-censorship, misrepresentation of findings, improper interference in scientific methods, and delays in publishing research--all could have been prevented had scientific integrity protections been formalized in statue when the attacks took place. At a minimum, there would have been recourse for federal employees faced with such political interference.
"The Scientific Integrity Act is good government legislation. It is agnostic on matters of policy; rather, it aims to ensure that policies are fully informed by science. The legislation contains many of the best practices that have been identified for the development and maintenance of a thriving federal scientific enterprise.
"The legislation prohibits any employee from manipulating or misrepresenting scientific findings. On issues from endangered species to toxic chemical contamination to worker safety, political appointees have personally made changes to scientific documents (or ordered that changes be made) in order to justify action or lack of action on public health and environmental threats.
"The legislation helps ensure that government communication of science is accurate by giving scientists the right of last review over materials that rely primarily on their research. It also gives scientists the right to correct official materials that misrepresent their work. This provision makes it less likely that federal agencies will put out inaccurate information, either intentionally or inadvertently.
"The legislation ensures that scientists can carry out their research--and share it with the public--without fear of political pressure or retaliation. It enables scientists to talk about their research in public, with reporters, in scientific journals, and at scientific conferences. The bill empowers federal scientists to share their personal opinions as informed experts, but only in an individual capacity, not as government representatives. This is essential due to the amount of censorship and self-censorship that has been documented on issues from climate change to food safety.
"The legislation requires agencies to devote resources to designate scientific integrity officers and provide federal employees with appropriate training to help prevent misconduct. Some agencies have developed policies that have no enforcement mechanisms, rendering them virtually meaningless.
"The legislation would not empower scientists to speak for their agency on policy matters. It would not enable scientists to circumvent the agency leadership with regard to policy decisions. It would be clearly applied to expressing views with regard to their scientific expertise.
Scientists Should Be Free to Speak Publicly Without Asking Permission
"Notably, the legislation extends appropriate free speech protections for agency experts by allowing them to speak about their scientific work without political filters. Many current and former agency leaders initially worry that by extending additional rights for scientists that scientists will confuse the public. Policies are already in place however at several agencies that assert this right and there have been no recorded problems.
"The
"It is worth noting that this is one area where the 2010
Problems with Scientific Integrity Happen Under All Presidents And Hurt People Directly
"In the
"Due to the widespread use of science in policymaking, stakeholders on all sides of scientific issues attempt to manipulate scientific information and/or scientists to achieve their own goals. Such practices introduce political and ideological bias into the science policy process and threaten to undermine protections for both public health and the environment. In recent years, scientists and science advocates have adapted the term "scientific integrity" to describe the proper process through which science informs policy.
"Overall, we find that the Trump administration's violations of scientific integrity are largely a continuation and escalation of patterns built up over the past seven decades as science and the growing federal science apparatus increasingly came into conflict with political, economic, and ideological interests. While many of the Trump administration's actions have origins in the work of prior administrations, others fit with the "unprecedented" narrative, including the uniquely open disregard for the conclusions of its own scientists.
"The paper chronicles several actions that resulted in a loss of scientific integrity in multiple presidential administrations. For example,
"However, while political interference in science happens under all administrations, it does not happen equally under all administrations. The Reagan administration brought a significant increase in scientific integrity violations. The next two presidents,
"The
* After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the
* In 2006, the
*
* Despite warnings from government scientists, the
* The
* The
* Reports that
* The
* The Department of justice demoted the head of the Bureau of justice Statistics when he refused to downplay the findings of a study which found statistical evidence of racial profiling by police officers.
* Officials at the OMB heavily edited testimony given by Dr.
* Former Surgeon General
* For nine months,
* The
"Even while promulgating scientific integrity policies, the Obama administration was not immune to political interference in science. For example, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
"According to reporting by Marketplace,
Now, At Some Agencies, It Has Never Been Worse
"The erosion of scientific integrity in government has hit a fever pitch in the last two years. Barely a week goes by without hearing of scientists who are prevented from sharing their expertise with the public, or analytic work that is censored, or experts who are prevented from communicating with
"In the last few months alone, we have learned of several cases of political interference in science, including the following:
1.
2.
3.
4. A proposal from the
"Recently, several former
"We all rely on federal scientists -- and we need to be able to trust that we're getting the best available science.
"But there's a problem here: Federal scientists often face political pressure that undermines their research and their ability to share it with the public. Political leaders have buried critical reports, keeping the public in the dark about real threats. They have prevented scientists from publishing their research or attending scientific conferences. They have disciplined scientists for talking about their findings to journalists.
"Most insidiously, this political interference can push scientists to self-censor, hedging their evidence or declining to pursue research entirely if they fear becoming a political target...
"We need strong, serious checks in place to make sure scientists can do their jobs, and all of us can benefit from their work. The Scientific Integrity Act, introduced this March by Rep.
Scientific Integrity in Policymaking Became a Public Issue Fifteen Years Ago
"During President
"Subsequently, 62 prominent scientists signed a statement14 calling on the George W. Bush administration to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. The signatories included many
"Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences...The administration of
"The scientists quoted President
"Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.
"It was initially believed that the George W. Bush administration could be successfully pressured to change course a belief that was eventually proved to be incorrect. The
"During the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, several congressional and
* U.S. House of
*
* U.S.
* U.S.
* U.S.
*
* U.S.
* U.S.
* U.
Scientific Integrity Reform Began a Decade Ago
"The
"During the 2008 presidential campaign, both major party presidential candidates committed to taking steps to address scientific integrity at federal agencies. The following question was included in a questionnaire from Science Debate, an organization that works to get candidates to address science and technology topics:
"Many government scientists report political interference in their job. Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?
"Senator
"We have invested huge amounts of public funds in scientific research. The public deserves to have the results of that research. Our job as elected officials is to develop the policies in response to those research results. Many times our research results have identified critical problems for our country. Denial of the facts will not solve any of these problems. Solutions can only come about as a result of a complete understanding of the problem. I believe policy should be based upon sound science. Good policy development will make for good politics... Integrity is critical in scientific research. Scientific research cannot succeed without integrity and trust. My own record speaks for integrity and putting the country first, not political agendas.
"Then-Senator
"I will restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees.... Policies must be determined using a process that builds on the long tradition of open debate that has characterized progress in science, including review by individuals who might bring new information or contrasting views. I will... restore the science integrity of government and restore transparency of decision- making by issuing an Executive Order establishing clear guidelines for the review and release of government publications, guaranteeing that results are released in a timely manner and not distorted by the ideological biases of political appointees."
"The promised executive order never materialized. But in
"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's also about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda -- and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.
The White House Directive on Scientific Integrity and Agency Responses
"
"It took 21 months for the memorandum to come out, after extensive pressure from the scientific community, and the final memorandum was weaker than many had hoped. Nevertheless, building off the memorandum, twenty-three federal agencies and departments subsequently developed policies that included provisions such as dispute resolution processes and the right to review scientific publications for accuracy prior to release.
"However, while the standards set forth in the memorandum represented a decent framework, they were, in practice, inadequate to fully protect scientific integrity in the executive branch. For example, relying on the memo, agency policies varied widely in terms of comprehensiveness. Further, a minority of organizations contributed significant resources toward developing implementation plans or enforcement mechanisms. As a result, at many agencies, implementation, to this day, remains incomplete.
"When developing solutions to fully protect the integrity of the scientific process, the 2010
Continued Challenges with Press Access
"UCS found that after 2008, many federal agencies made improvements to their media and social media policies that gave more freedoms to federal employees--at least on paper18. However, there continued to be inconsistency among these policies from agency to agency. And journalists still reported routinely facing significant obstacles in attempts to speak to federal scientists. Practices regarding media access and scientists' freedom to communicate continued to vary widely across agencies. In research conducted jointly with the
* Preapproval for interviews is often required. While it's valuable for scientists to keep their PIOs and supervisors informed about their media contacts, when they are forbidden to speak to reporters without prior approval of the interview or of the specific questions to be asked, this can amount to de facto censorship.
* Interviews are closely monitored. PIOs believe that their presence provides needed support for scientists and helps journalists and scientists understand each other. Some of the journalists surveyed agreed that this can be the case. But many reported that the PIO's presence can have a chilling effect; one respondent expressed uncertainty about the trust she could place in her sources, questioning if they would say something different if the PIOs weren't there.
* Interviews are denied. Sometimes, PIOs simply deny journalists' requests for interviews with scientist. Of course, scientists have no obligation to grant interviews, and it's also true that agencies are often understaffed and lack the resources to respond to every request. But many journalists report that access is denied frequently and often without a reason. They also reported concerns about favoritism, with PIOs tending to favor staff writers at well-known publications over freelancers. This is a growing problem as science desks at traditional news outlets shrink, and freelancers increasingly take their place.
* Tough questions are avoided. Some of the hurdles writers report facing--having to repeat requests multiple times, being routed to other agency employees, or being given a list of talking points instead of a specific answer--are perceived as an attempt to avoid tough questions. And reporters say this has a direct impact on the quality of their work and their ability to keep the public informed.
"Scientific integrity policies were supposed to alleviate these pressures. Our research shows that they did not fully do so.
"Dozens of media organizations wrote to and met with
* Officials blocking reporters' requests to talk to specific staff people;
* Excessive delays in answering interview requests that stretch past reporters' deadlines;
* Officials conveying information "on background," refusing to give reporters what should be public information unless they agree not to say who is speaking;
* Federal agencies blackballing reporters who write critically of them.
"The problem has become far worse during the Trump administration, where some public affairs officials see journalists as enemies. At the EPA21, public affairs officials have gone so far as to attack reporters who write stories that the officials deem are unfavorable to the administration. At the
"In 2018, according to the
The GAO Report Evaluated Policies but Did Not Evaluate Effectiveness
"This year, the Government Accountability Office issued a report25 evaluating the policies of nine federal scientific agencies. It found that all of the nine agencies have some kind of policy in place, but that some failed to have procedures in place for processing allegations of violations of the policy. Further, a minority of the agencies had done any significant monitoring or evaluation of their policies. The report made several recommendations to specific agencies to improve their practices.
"There are limitations to the GAO's approach to this study. By only measuring the content of scientific integrity policies against the 2010 OSTP guidance, the GAO was not able to determine whether that guidance is sufficient to create a culture of scientific integrity at the affected agencies. Because most agencies do not objectively measure the effectiveness of their policies--only one agency, the
"The challenge, of course, is that we see even with policies that are strong, political pressures on scientists persist. At some agencies with weak policies, such as NASA and the
"Unfortunately, this is the case because scientific integrity policies are inherently vulnerable. Scientific integrity officials at all agencies must keep politics in mind in all aspects of their jobs, including providing informal advice, investigating allegations of political interference in science, reporting on and evaluating policy effectiveness, advocating for improvements internally, and speaking publicly about their work. At any moment, these policies could be curtailed or eliminated, further demonstrating a need for codification.
Surveys of Scientists Demonstrate Sustained Challenges
"Since 2005, the
"The results of the survey27 provided evidence of political interference in the science policy process at many federal agencies. At some agencies, the situation for scientists is worse than it was during the Bush or Obama administrations.
"Scientists reported high levels of censorship and self-censorship:
* 631 respondents (18 percent) at agencies that work on climate change agreed or strongly agreed that they had been asked to omit the phrase "climate change" from their work.
* 798 respondents (20 percent) reported that they had been asked or told to avoid work on specific scientific topics because they are politically contentious.
* 1040 respondents (26 percent) reported that they had avoided working on certain scientific topics or using certain scientific terms because they are politically contentious, though they were not told explicitly to avoid them.
"(Note that percentages vary because not every respondent answered every question)
"Essay responses reinforced these findings.
* From the
* From the
* From the
"Notably, in the 2018 survey, scientists perceived significantly less political pressure at the
What Scientific Integrity Polices Have Accomplished
"The implementation of scientific integrity policies has changed agency culture so that more staff have higher expectations regarding their rights and responsibilities. It has enabled scientists to question political interference, consult with supervisors, and in some cases bring forward important information to decision makers and the public. These policies have also enabled many scientists and agencies to head off problems before they occur, through consultation and discussion.
"Through the surveys of government scientists, we know that at agencies where scientific integrity policies and allegation resolution procedures are in place, scientists are more likely to possess an understanding of their rights and responsibilities related to scientific integrity. We know that investigations conducted under scientific integrity policies have led to the release of information that should have been public and the clarification of materials that were unethically manipulated.
"It is important to look beyond the formal allegation and resolution process to see the most important value of the scientific integrity policies. I have spoken with many individuals who have served in the scientific integrity officer role over the past several years. Notably, they report that one of the most important aspects of their role is to provide informal consultations to employees who are dealing with situations where there may be a loss of scientific integrity. These informal consultations help resolve problems before they become formal allegations, and constitute the majority of interactions that employees have with scientific integrity officers.
"As a result, I do not recommend that scientific integrity standards be enforced by an inspector general or other similarly punitive office. Very few federal employees who have felt comfortable consulting with the scientific integrity office would feel comfortable going to an inspector general.
"Further, inspectors general investigate specific types of waste, fraud, and abuse, and many scientific integrity violations fall outside of those categories. Inspectors general tend to look for wrongdoing, while scientific integrity policies are designed to set standards by which people should behave.
The Scientific Integrity Act Does Not Address All Problems with Science and Politics - Nor Should It
"If this bill becomes law, science can still be sidelined in policymaking. The bill does not address attempts to limit the types of science that can be considered in making policy. It does not address attempts to compromise the independence of federal advisory committees, or to eliminate these committees altogether. It does not address problems with workforce reduction and retention. It does not provide funding for professional development.
"There is no requirement in the legislation about the weight that science should be given in any given policy decision. We aren't talking about being policy prescriptive. The legislation is designed to ensure that science fully informs the decisions that we make. And that is a very good start.
The Scientific Integrity Act Should be Further Strengthened
"The Scientific Integrity Act as written is excellent legislation. But it should be amended by this committee to give it the teeth it needs to fully protect scientific integrity at the agency. There are three major areas that legislators should consider strengthening the bill:
1. Develop Enforcement Processes. While the legislation requires procedures for addressing allegations of loss of scientific integrity, there is no language that ensures that these procedures are consistent with current whistleblower and other worker protection laws. The bill author should work with whistleblower protection experts to ensure that staff who file allegations are fully protected.
2. Improve Reporting and Policy Assessment. Reporting numbers of misconduct cases filed, appealed, and pending is insufficient for the public to understand whether policies are being well implemented. The bill author should improve language to increase the substance of public reporting. This could include ensuring that there are career staff in OSTP who are empowered to develop evaluative metrics and set public reporting standards.
3. Remove or Revise Existing Policy Certification. The legislation currently allows agency heads to self-certify that existing policies already meet the standards of the legislation. As no agency policy currently meets all standards of the legislation, this could provide a way for agencies to effectively exempt themselves from the law, or at least slow down compliance.
4. Restrict the Ability of the
The Scientific Integrity Act Has Broad Support
"It's not just scientists that are behind the Scientific Integrity Act. More than 60 organizations have signed a letter urging members of
"S. 775/H.R. 1709, the Scientific Integrity Act of 2019 contains provisions that would address many of these attacks on science. It would prohibit political appointees from altering or suppressing scientific findings and give scientists final review over how agencies portray their research. It also would ensure that federal agencies designate scientific integrity officers and provide federal employees with ethics training to help prevent misconduct.
"Another important component of the Scientific Integrity Act is its codification of scientists' right to disseminate their work without interference. It would enable scientists to talk about their research - with reporters, in scientific journals, and at scientific conferences as well as directly with members of the public. Such communication is essential both for public understanding and for federal scientists' ability to share their insights for better oversight and accountability of agency decisions.
"Our nation relies on scientific integrity to maintain the role of best available science in policymaking. This research is critical to improving air and water quality, protecting workers, safeguarding public health and safety, advancing reproductive health, defending civil rights, preserving biodiversity, and responding to threats posed by diseases and extreme weather events.
"Several organizational leaders have explained why they believe that the Scientific Integrity Act is essential for good government:
"The Scientific Integrity Act is an important step forward for safeguarding scientific integrity at federal agencies, and it improves the legal options available for federal scientists who are facing increasing levels of censorship, research hindrances, and misrepresentation of established facts. As the Scientific Integrity Act recognizes, it is imperative to have legally-protected pathways to challenge and correct scientific integrity violations."
"We have long recognized the critical importance of good, unmanipulated science to inform wildlife conservation, as is so clearly articulated in the Endangered Species Act. The Scientific Integrity Act is a much-needed law to close the gap that has allowed special interests to unduly shape the outcomes of fundamental and applied research that affects the lives of people and wildlife every single day. The sooner this bill is passed and signed into law, the sooner we can stop the Trump administration and future administrations from undermining science."
"This legislation would put teeth in the rights of scientific whistleblowers that have been gaining symbolic traction since the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. That year
"Over the past two years, we've seen federal agencies disregard evidence and take apparently politically motivated actions that harm women's health, such as canceling Teen Pregnancy Prevention grants and rolling back the employer contraceptive mandate. Given recent instances where ideology has seemingly supplanted science around women's health, we applaud this bill for promoting the role of science to guide policy decisions on public health."
"From environmental protection to women's health and economic security, we rely on scientific integrity in policymaking to protect public health and well-being. Our government should be using science and evidence-based information to protect public health -- but frighteningly, they're doing the opposite. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the administration's relentless, anti-science approach to undermining reproductive health care. The Scientific Integrity Act would enact strong scientific integrity policies that protect both research and researchers and would restore public trust in our federal agencies."
"This bill strives to ensure that agency policies reflect the unadulterated work and opinions of professionally trained scientists. American taxpayers deserve to know that the scientific work they fund is actually informing
"SACNAS supports the Scientific Integrity Act of 2019 and stresses that the integrity of scientific research, the objective use of scientific evidence in policy-making and the unbiased sharing of scientific information with the public, should be upheld. Only when scientists from all backgrounds are represented, and science is included when public policy decisions are being made, will we be able to mitigate the risk of vulnerable communities being overlooked, their problems ignored, and their unique needs disregarded. These two conditions are particularly salient for ensuring science for the common good and improving public trust in science."
Dr.
"As a former agency scientist and then senior executive (NOAA), I believe it is vital for scientific evidence to come through to both policy-makers and the public directly from scientists themselves. That doesn't require that decisions are only based on science. Of course other factors come in to play. But it does mean that the justification for decisions can't falsely lean on science, hiding other considerations. Let the science speak."
Dr.
Improve and Pass the Scientific Integrity Act
"I am very appreciative of the leadership that
"Ultimately, the Scientific Integrity Act is required for federal agencies to be able to meet their missions and address the complex public health, environmental, and national security challenges we face as a nation. This is true in the day-to-day functioning of an agency, but also for its long-term health. Federal agencies will be unable to attract top scientific talent without protections in place that guarantee scientists' ability to do policy-relevant research, follow the evidence where it leads, and communicate out the results of that work.
"The Scientific Integrity Act is essential good government legislation that is more important now than ever before. Every day that goes by without adequate protections for scientists and scientific information in policymaking leaves the public uninformed and enables policymakers to make arbitrary decisions with inadequate accountability. I encourage the committee to hold additional hearings into these matters and to improve and pass the Scientific Integrity Act."
* * *
Footnotes:
1 Bipartisan Outrage as
2 Joshua Tree National Park Superintendent Reprimanded for Climate Change Science, UCS Staff,
3 POLICY ANALYSIS: Scientific Integrity in Federal Policymaking Under Past and Present Administrations,
4 Federal Science and the Public Good, Securing the Integrity of Science in Policy Making,
5 The morning after, Nature, 480,413,
6
7 Attacks on science - https://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/attacks-on-science
8 Abuses of Science: Case Studies, UCS Staff, 2009 - https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/abuses-science-case-studies
9 Silencing Science Tracker - http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/resources/silencing-science-tracker/
10 After hundreds of crashes, this
11 Scientists Find Serious Flaws in Proposal to Delist Endangered
12 Scientific integrity is crumbling under Trump,
13 Politics and Science in the
14 2004 Scientist Statement on Restoring Scientific Integrity to Federal Policy Making,
15 President
16 Abuses of Science: Case Studies, UCS Staff, 2009 - https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/abuses-science-case-studies
17 Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject: Scientific Integrity,
18 Grading Government Transparency: Scientists' Freedom to Speak (and Tweet) at Federal Agencies, Goldman et. Al,
19 https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/ucs-mediated-access-report-2015.pdf
20 Letter to Mr.
21 The environment for reporters covering the
22 Interior Secretary Zinke reportedly dressed down
23
24 Trump administration tightens rules for federal scientists talking to reporters,
25 SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY POLICIES: Additional Actions Could Strengthen Integrity of
26 2018 Federal Scientists Survey FAQ - https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/2018-federal-scientists-survey
27 The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Results of Our 2018
[TheHill]
La. senators introduce bill to reauthorize National Flood Insurance Program
Dentons Expands Its Insurance Practice With London Partner Hire
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News