Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
Congressional research reportNov 9, 2022
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
Updated November 9, 2022
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R46614
SUMMARY
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
R46614
November 9, 2022
The results of research and development (R&D) help inform the decisions that policymakers and
the public reach on a wide range of issues, including human health and safety, the environment,
Marcy E. Gallo
agriculture, energy, and transportation. For example, scientific information is essential to the
Analyst in Science and
review and approval of drugs and medical devices and the setting of air quality standards. There
Technology Policy
is broad agreement among policymakers and the scientific and engineering community about
ensuring the integrity of the conduct, communication, and management of R&D, and its use in
policy development and decisionmaking. However, recently, some policymakers and others have
alleged that presidential administrations of both parties have violated the principles of scientific
integrity. Assertions of such violations include weighting the membership of federal advisory committees toward a particular
viewpoint or constituency, targeting individual scientists for harassment or adverse actions, appointing agency officials with
significant conflicts of interest or antagonistic views toward an agency’s mission or neutrality to science, improperly editing
scientific documents, and using the budget process to impede the implementation or formulation of science-based policies.
Following the guidance of a 2010 memorandum issued by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), more than
20 federal departments and agencies have developed and implemented scientific integrity policies. The memorandum detailed
principles in four broad areas: foundations of scientific integrity, public communications, use of federal advisory committees,
and professional development of government scientists and engineers. The memorandum provided federal agencies with
flexibility developing their scientific integrity policies stating, “the scope of an agency’s scientific work and its relationship
to the mission of each department or agency may necessitate distinct mechanisms be used by each to implement this
guidance.” In 2021, President Biden issued a memorandum that “reaffirms and builds on” previous scientific integrity efforts.
The memorandum required, among other things, that the heads of federal agencies establish and publish a process for
reporting, investigating, and appealing allegations of deviations from the agency’s scientific integrity policy and that all
agency employees and contractors receive training on their rights and responsibilities related to scientific integrity.
There is, however, no uniform definition of scientific integrity across the federal government and a review of the
effectiveness of federal scientific integrity policies by the current Administration found, among other things, that more work
is needed to create and maintain a culture of scientific integrity and that violations involving high-level officials are the most
problematic and difficult to address. Allegations of violations of scientific integrity have been levied against previous
administrations from both parties. For example, several media articles reported that Trump Administration officials delayed
timely information to the public from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention related to the COVID-19 pandemic that
was inconsistent with political objectives, or altered scientific findings or recommendations in ways that were misleading or
incomplete. In another example, in 2013, a federal judge overruled a decision by the Obama Administration’s Secretary of
Health of Human Services stating her actions were politically motivated and scientifically unjustified. Some experts have
expressed concern over the variation in scope and specificity of federal agency scientific integrity policies and recommended
that Congress enact scientific integrity legislation that would create a clear set of standards and mechanisms for enforcement.
The 118th Congress may remain interested in the objectivity, timeliness, and public availability of scientific information. This
report provides an overview of scientific integrity and selected issues for congressional consideration. For example, in 2019,
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the majority of agencies reviewed had not taken steps to evaluate
and monitor implementation of their scientific integrity policies. Additionally, in 2022, GAO found that the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response all lacked “well-defined procedures for reporting or addressing political
interference in scientific decision-making.” As such, Congress may consider how agencies report and address alleged
violations, in addition to, interagency coordination of scientific integrity policies, and the designation of scientific integrity
officers, among others.
Congressional Research Service
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
What Is Scientific Integrity? ............................................................................................................ 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Past Events and Recent Concerns.................................................................................................... 7
Assessment and Review of Federal Scientific Integrity Policies .................................................. 10
Issues for Consideration ................................................................................................................ 13
Monitoring and Evaluating Policy Effectiveness .................................................................... 13
Reporting and Enforcement of Alleged Violations ................................................................. 14
Intra and Interagency Coordination of Scientific Integrity Policies ........................................ 15
Designation of a Scientific Integrity Officer ........................................................................... 16
Options for Congress ..................................................................................................................... 16
Tables
Table 1. List of Federal Departments and Agencies with Scientific Integrity Policies ................... 6
Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 18
Congressional Research Service
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
Introduction
The U.S. government supports a range of research and development (R&D) to help maintain
economic competitiveness, strengthen national security, improve health care, and protect the
environment. There is broad agreement among policymakers and the scientific and engineering
community about the importance of ensuring federal, academic, and private sector R&D activities
proceed with integrity and their results are openly communicated. Accurate and credible scientific
information is important to many policy development and decisionmaking processes. Over the
years, some Members of Congress and scientific and environmental advocacy organizations have
alleged that presidential administrations of both parties have violated the principles of scientific
integrity. This report provides an overview of scientific integrity and discusses selected issues for
congressional consideration.
What Is Scientific Integrity?
While there is no uniform definition of scientific integrity across the federal government, the
Office of Science and Technology Policy’s (OSTP’s) October 2020 report, Enhancing the
Security and Integrity of America’s Research Enterprise, offers a framework for research
integrity, which is a component of scientific integrity:
Openness and transparency enable productive collaboration and help ensure
appropriate disclosure of potential conflicts of interest and commitment.
Accountability and honesty help acknowledge errors and correct behaviors that
can hamper progress.
Impartiality and objectivity protect against improper influence and distortion of
scientific knowledge.
Respect helps create an environment where all can be heard and contribute.
Freedom of inquiry allows individual curiosity to guide scientific discovery.
Reciprocity ensures scientists and institutions exchange materials, knowledge,
data, access to facilities and natural sites, and training in a way that benefits
collaborating partners proportionally.
Merit-based competition helps ensure a level playing field where the best ideas
and innovations can advance.1
In addition, some federal agencies have adopted a specific definition of scientific integrity, others
have defined scientific integrity by defining what constitutes a loss or compromise of scientific
integrity, and some have no definition of scientific integrity or the loss scientific integrity, instead
choosing to outline existing policies, activities, or principles that govern or constitute scientific
integrity.2
1 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Enhancing the Security and Integrity of
America’s Research Enterprise, October 15, 2020, p. 4, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/
Enhancing-the-Security-and-Integrity-of-Americas-Research-Enterprise.pdf.
2 Rashida Nek and Anita R. Eisenstadt, Review of Federal Agency Policies on Scientific Integrity, Institute for Defense
Analyses, Science and Technology Policy Institute, Washington, DC, December 2016, pp. 11-14, https://www.ida.org//media/feature/publications/r/re/review-of-federal-agency-policies-on-scientific-integrity/d-8305.ashx.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has adopted a definition of scientific
integrity that includes a definition of a compromise of scientific integrity as part the agency’s
scientific integrity policy.3 USDA’s definitions, presented below, are illustrative of how federal
agencies generally view scientific integrity.
USDA defines scientific integrity as
The condition resulting from adherence to professional values and practices when
conducting, reporting, and applying the results of scientific activities that ensures
objectivity, clarity, and reproducibility, and that provides insulation from bias, fabrication,
falsification, plagiarism, inappropriate influence, political interference, censorship, and
inadequate procedural and information security.
USDA defines a compromise of scientific integrity as
The loss or breach of scientific integrity in the conducting or reporting of scientific
activities, and/or the use or application of the results of scientific activities. Compromised
scientific integrity includes, but is not limited to
(a) Using scientific products that are not representative of the current state of scientific
knowledge and research (for example because of a lack of appropriate peer review, poor
methodology, or flawed analyses) to inform decisionmaking and policy formulation;
(b) Misrepresenting the underlying assumptions, uncertainties, or probabilities of scientific
products;
(c) Inappropriately influencing, or politically interfering with, scientific activities and/or
resulting scientific products;
(d) Inappropriately influencing, or politically interfering with, the release of scientific
products;
(e) Inappropriately suppressing or censoring the objective communication of findings (i.e.,
data and results) resulting from scientific activities; and/or
(f) Inappropriately
communications.4
altering
or
misrepresenting
scientific
products
in
public
Generally, federal scientific integrity policies include three principles: (1) research integrity in the
conduct of science by federal scientists, (2) open and trustworthy supervision and communication
of federal science, and (3) the appropriate use of science in policy development and
decisionmaking.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy organization,
It is important to note that a difference of opinion on the appropriate policy action to take
based on scientific findings does not signal a loss of scientific integrity, nor do differing
informed opinions on the science itself. Policies are appropriately informed by many
factors, including value judgments and the legal framework put in place by Congress for
particular policy decisions. Therefore, ignoring science does not necessarily represent a
loss of scientific integrity (though it may result in a loss of public trust and/or a less than
effective policy), unless the law requires a decision be based solely on scientific
3 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Departmental Regulation DR 1074-001, Scientific Integrity, November 18, 2016,
https://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Final%20-%20DR%201074001%20Scientific%20Integrity.pdf.
4 Ibid., pp. 20-21.
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
information (as, for example, the Endangered Species Act [ESA] and Clean Air Act
require).5
Background
In 2007, partly in response to perceptions, including from some Members of Congress, that the
George W. Bush Administration politicized federal research,6 Congress directed OSTP to
develop and issue an overarching set of principles to ensure the communication and open
exchange of data and results to other agencies, policymakers, and the public of research
conducted by a scientist employed by a Federal civilian agency and to prevent the
intentional or unintentional suppression or distortion of such research findings. 7
On May 28, 2008, then-OSTP Director John Marburger sent a memorandum to federal science
agencies that provided guidance related to scientific integrity. The memorandum stated:
Robust and open communication of scientific information is critical not only for advancing
science, but also for ensuring that society is informed and provided with objective and
factual information to make sound decisions. Accordingly, the Federal government is
committed to a culture of scientific openness that fosters and protects the open exchange
of ideas, data and information to the scientific community, policymakers, and the public. 8
On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum on scientific integrity that tasked the
OSTP Director with developing recommendations and guidance “designed to guarantee scientific
integrity throughout the executive branch.” The following principles were to serve as the basis for
the recommendations and guidance.
The selection and retention of candidates for science and technology positions in the
executive branch should be based on the candidate’s knowledge, credentials, experience,
and integrity.
Each agency should have appropriate rules and procedures to ensure the integrity of the
scientific process within the agency.
When scientific or technological information is considered in policy decisions, the
information should be subject to well established scientific processes, including peer
review where appropriate, and each agency should appropriately and accurately reflect that
information in complying with and applying relevant statutory standards.
Except for information that is properly restricted from disclosure under procedures
established in accordance with statute, regulation, Executive Order, or Presidential
5 Gretchen Goldman, Genna Reed, and Michael Halpern, et al., Preserving Scientific Integrity in Federal
Policymaking: Lessons from the Past Two Administrations and What’s at Stake under the Trump Administration, Union
of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA, January 2017, p. 4, https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/01/
preserving-scientific-integrity-in-federal-policymaking-ucs-2017.pdf.
6 See, for example, Union of Concerned Scientists, Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush
Administration’s Misuse of Science, March 2004, https://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/
rsi_final_fullreport_1.pdf, and House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Politics and Science in
the Bush Administration, Minority Staff Special Investigations Division, prepared for Rep. Harry A. Waxman, August
2003.
7 America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69), §1009.
8 John H. Marburger III, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject: Principles for
the Release of Scientific Research Results, Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy,
Washington, DC, May 28, 2008, https://www.arl.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/ostp-scientific-research28may08.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
Memorandum, each agency should make available to the public the scientific or
technological findings or conclusions it considered or relied on in policy decisions.
Each agency should have in place procedures to identify and address instances in which
the scientific process or the integrity of scientific and technological information may have
been compromised.
Each agency should adopt such additional procedures, including any appropriate
whistleblower protections, as are necessary to ensure the integrity of scientific and
technological information and processes on which the agency relies in its decisionmaking
or that it otherwise uses or prepares.9
On December 17, 2010, then-OSTP Director John Holdren issued a memorandum to the heads of
executive departments and agencies providing further guidance in the development of scientific
integrity policies. The memorandum detailed principles in four broad areas:
Foundations of scientific integrity;
Public communications;
Use of federal advisory committees; and
Professional development of government scientists and engineers.
The memorandum provided federal agencies with flexibility in the development of their scientific
integrity policies stating, “the scope of an agency’s scientific work and its relationship to the
mission of each department or agency may necessitate distinct mechanisms be used by each to
implement this guidance.”10 More than 20 federal departments and agencies have developed and
implemented scientific integrity policies based on the 2010 OSTP memorandum and principles
(see Table 1).
In May 2019, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) established the Joint
Committee on the Research Environment (JCORE), which includes the Subcommittee on Rigor
and Integrity in Research. According to OSTP,
The JCORE Subcommittee on Rigor and Integrity in Research was established to identify
cross-agency principles, priorities, and actions to enhance research integrity, rigor,
reproducibility, and replicability. The Subcommittee works collaboratively to support
activities that facilitate research rigor and integrity through efforts to address transparency,
incentives, communication, training and other areas.11
In November 2019, the White House hosted a summit on JCORE. In his opening remarks, OSTP
Director Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier stated,
JCORE has a focus on four key areas. The first one is research integrity, which is
fundamentally focused on people playing by the rules. It does not matter where you are
from. If you sign up to do research, you do not plagiarize, you do not falsify, you do not
fabricate, you do not fail to disclose, you do not fail to do what is required of you in the
9
President Barack Obama, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject: Scientific
Integrity, Washington, DC, March 9, 2009, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/memorandumheads-executive-departments-and-agencies-3-9-09.
10 John Holdren, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject: Scientific Integrity,
Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC, December 17, 2010,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/scientific-integrity-memo-12172010.pdf.
11 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Advancing America’s Global
Leadership in Science and Technology:Trump Administration Highlights 2017-2020, October 2020, p. 40,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Trump-Administration-ST-Highlights-2017-2020.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
research community. And if you do, then you are fundamentally violating the central values
of research.12
Additionally, in November 2019, OSTP issued a request for information (RFI) to solicit “input on
actions that Federal agencies can take, working in partnership with private industry, academic
institutions, and non-profit/philanthropic organizations, to maximize the quality and effectiveness
of the American research environment,” including questions on research integrity.13
The Trump Administration has also emphasized research integrity as part of the annual
memorandum on R&D budgetary priorities jointly issued by the Office of Management and
Budget and OSTP.14
On January 14, 2021, JCORE released a document that “offer[s] recommendations research
organizations (e.g., universities, private companies, independent research institutes) can take to
better protect the security and integrity of America’s research enterprise.”15 According to the
document, it is intended to complement National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 (NSPM33), titled, “U.S. Government Supported Research and Development National Security Policy,”
which “directs action to strengthen protections of United States Government-supported Research
and Development (R&D) against foreign government interference and exploitation.”16 These
efforts generally focus on research security. However, the JCORE document recommends that
research organizations provide their personnel with annual training on the responsible and ethical
conduct of research.
On January 27, 2021, President Biden issued a memorandum that “reaffirms and builds on”
President Obama’s 2009 scientific integrity memorandum and the 2010 OSTP memorandum,
stating it is “the policy of my Administration to make evidence-based decisions guided by the
best available science and data.”17 Specifically, the memorandum charges the Director of OSTP
12 Joint Committee on the Research Environment, Summary of the 2019 White House Summit of the Joint Committee on
the Research Environment, National Science and Technology Council, November 2019, p. 9,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Summary-of-JCORE-Summit-November-2019.pdf.
13 Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Request for Information on the American Research Environment,” vol.
84, no. 228 Federal Register 65194-65197, November 26, 2019.
14 See for example, Russell T. Vought, Director, Office of Management and Budget and Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier,
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies, Subject: Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities, Executive
Office of the President, M-20-29, August 14, 2020, p. 8, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/M20-29.pdf; and Russell T. Vought, Director, Office of Management and Budget and Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier,
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies, Subject: Fiscal Year 2021 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities, Executive Office of
the President, M-19-25, August 30, 2019, p. 7, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FY-21-RDBudget-Priorities.pdf.
15 Subcommittee on Research Security, Joint Committee on the Research Environment, National Science and
Technology Council, Recommended Practices for Strengthening the Security and Integrity of America’s Science and
Technology Research Enterprise, Washington, DC, January 15, 2021, p. 1, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/NSTC-Research-Security-Best-Practices-Jan2021.pdf.
16 White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Presidential Memorandum on United States Government-Supported
Research and Development National Security Policy,” National Security Presidential Memorandum-33, January 14,
2021, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-united-states-governmentsupported-research-development-national-security-policy/.
17 President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject:
Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking, Washington, DC,
January 27, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/memorandum-onrestoring-trust-in-government-through-scientific-integrity-and-evidence-based-policymaking/.
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
with the responsibility for ensuring scientific integrity across federal agencies and establishing an
interagency task force to review the effectiveness of federal agency scientific integrity policies.
The task force is required to seek input from stakeholders and the public on scientific integrity
practices and to publish a report synthesizing the task force’s findings (see “Assessment and
Review of Scientific Integrity Policies” below for more on the task force’s review). Upon
completion of the review, the task force is further required to “develop a framework to inform and
support the regular assessment and iterative improvement of agency scientific-integrity policies
and practices” going forward.18
The memorandum directs the heads of federal agencies to ensure that their existing scientific
integrity policies are consistent with the 2009 presidential memorandum and the 2010 OSTP
memorandum, in addition to the findings of the task force. The memorandum also directs federal
agencies to educate their employees on the agency’s scientific integrity policies, to develop and
publish procedures for implementing the agency’s scientific integrity policies, and to publish an
annual report on scientific integrity investigations and appeals, among other requirements.
Additionally, the memorandum directs federal agencies without scientific integrity policies to
develop such policies and requires federal agencies “that fund, conduct, or oversee scientific
research” to designate a senior agency employee as Chief Science Officer. The Chief Science
Officer must “ensure that the agency’s research programs are scientifically and technologically
well-founded and conducted with integrity” and is responsible for overseeing the implementation
and improvement of the agency’s scientific integrity policies.
Table 1. List of Federal Departments and Agencies with Scientific Integrity Policies
Federal Department or Agency
URL for Scientific Integrity Policy
Department of Agriculture
https://www.usda.gov/directives/dr-1074-001
Department of Commerce
http://2010-2014.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2012/april/
scientific_integrity_memorandum_dtd_2011-12-16.pdf
National Institute of Standards
and Technology
https://www.nist.gov/summary-report-scientific-integrity
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
https://www.noaa.gov/organization/administration/nao-202-735d-2scientific-integrity
Department of Defense
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/
320020p.pdf
Department of Education
https://ies.ed.gov/pdf/EDScientificIntegrityPolicy.pdf
Department of Energy
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2017/01/f34/
DOE%20Scientific%20Integrity%20Policy%2001112017.PDF
Department of Health and Human
Services
https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/policies-principles-assuring-scientific-integrity
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
https://www.cdc.gov/os/integrity/docs/CDCSIGuide_042516.pdf
Food and Drug Administration
https://www.fda.gov/media/82932/download
National Institutes of Health
https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/about-nih/nih-director/testimonies/
nih-policies-procedures-promoting-scientific-integrity-2012.pdf
18 On March 3, 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a request for information “to
assist in developing a framework for regular assessment and iterative improvement of agency scientific integrity
policies and practices.” See 87 Federal Register 12165-12167.
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
Federal Department or Agency
URL for Scientific Integrity Policy
Department of Homeland Security
https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/foia/dhs-directive-026-07-scientificintegrity.pdf
Department of the Interior
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/
305_dm_3_final_revised_si_policy_12-16-14.pdf
U.S. Geological Survey
https://www.usgs.gov/survey-manual/50025-scientific-integrity
Department of Justice
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/open/legacy/2013/07/29/dojscientific-integrity-policy.pdf
Department of Labor
https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASP/files/DOL_Final_SIP.pdf
Department of State
https://fam.state.gov/fam/11fam/11fam0820.html
Department of Transportation
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/mission/
administrations/assistant-secretary-research-and-technology/282391/
scientificintegritypolicy.pdf
Department of Veteran Affairs
https://www.va.gov/HEALTH/docs/DRAFT_VADirective0005.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-02/documents/
scientific_integrity_policy_2012.pdf
Marine Mammal Commission
https://www.mmc.gov/wp-content/uploads/sci_integrity_policy.pdf
National Aeronautics and Space
Administrationa
https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/npg_img/N_PD_1920_0001_/
N_PD_1920_0001__main.pdf
National Science Foundation
http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/si/sipolicy.pdf
Office of the Director of National
Intelligence
https://legacy-assets.eenews.net/open_files/assets/2011/12/23/
document_gw_01.pdf
United States Agency for
International Development
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/15396/integrity.pdf
Source: CRS identification of agency policies and Table B-1 in National Science and Technology Council,
Scientific Integrity Fast-Track Action Committee, “Protecting the Integrity of Government Science,” January
2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/01-22Protecting_the_Integrity_of_Government_Science.pdf.
Notes: Each federal department or agency name is hyperlinked to its respective scientific integrity policy. Some
agencies located within federal departments have developed and implemented their own scientific integrity
policies that comply with their respective department-wide policy, but are specified to the needs and mission of
the agency (e.g., the National Institutes of Health within the Department of Health and Human Services). Others
do not have agency-specific scientific integrity policies, but adhere to department-wide policy, and as such are
not listed in Table 1 (e.g., the Agricultural Research Service within the Department of Agriculture, the Federal
Aviation Administration within the Department of Transportation).
a. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration also released guidelines for scientific and research
integrity that can be found at https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/
nasa_guidelines_for_promoting_scientific_and_research_integrity-july_2018.pdf.
Past Events and Recent Concerns
There are a number of past cases alleging the executive branch violated principles of scientific
integrity. Assertions of such violations include weighting the membership of federal advisory
committees toward a particular viewpoint or constituency, targeting individual scientists for
harassment or adverse actions, appointing agency officials with significant conflicts of interest or
antagonistic views toward an agency’s mission or neutrality to science, improperly editing
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
scientific documents, and using the budget process to impede the implementation or formulation
of science-based policies.19
In 2006, the Department of the Interior’s Office of Inspector General (DOI OIG) investigated an
allegation against Julie MacDonald, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, that
alleged she “bullied, insulted, and harassed the professional staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to change documents and alter biological reporting regarding the Endangered
Species Act [ESA] program.”20 In a 2008 report, the DOI OIG stated,
MacDonald’s zeal to advance her agenda has caused considerable harm to the integrity of
the ESA program, and to the morale and reputation of the FW[S], as well as potential harm
to individual species. Her heavy-handedness has cast doubt on nearly every ESA decision
issued during her tenure; of the 20 decisions we reviewed, her influence potentially
jeopardized 13 ESA decisions. 21
In 2011, former Secretary of Health and Human Service Kathleen Sebelius revoked a decision by
the Food and Drug Administration that would have allowed for the sale of emergency
contraception over the counter without age restrictions. Many viewed this decision as counter to
the Obama Administration’s scientific integrity principles.22 In a 2013 ruling overturning the
decision, the judge stated, “the secretary’s action was politically motivated, scientifically
unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.”23
In 2019, another event that attracted scrutiny from many Members of Congress and the public
was a statement issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that
rebuked an earlier tweet from the National Weather Service (NWS) Birmingham, Alabama
Weather Forecast Office on the predicted path and likely impact of Hurricane Dorian on the state
of Alabama.24 According to the Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General (DOC
OIG), NOAA issued the statement “in response to a request by the White House then-acting Chief
of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. The request and resulting
sequence of events gave rise to the question of political interference.”25
19 Emily Berman and Jacob Carter, “Policy Analysis: Scientific Integrity in Federal Policymaking under Past and
Present Administrations,” Journal of Science Policy & Governance, vol. 13, no. 1 (September 2018),
https://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/uploads/5/4/3/4/5434385/berman_emily__carter_jacob.pdf.
20 Office of Inspector General, Department of the Interior, Investigative Report on Allegations Against Julie
MacDonald, Deputy Assistant Secretary Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, December 1, 2006, p. 2, https://www.doioig.gov/
sites/doioig.gov/files/Macdonald.pdf.
21 Office of Inspector General, Department of the Interior, Report of Investigation: The Endangered Species Act and the
Conflict Between Science and Policy, December 15, 2008, p. 1, https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/
EndangeredSpeciesFINAL.pdf.
22 Emily Berman and Jacob Carter, “Policy Analysis: Scientific Integrity in Federal Policymaking Under Past and
Present Administrations,” Journal of Science Policy & Governance, vol. 13, no. 1 (September 2018).
23 Pam Belluck, “Judge Strikes Down Age Limits on Morning-After Pill,” New York Times, April 5, 2013,
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/health/judge-orders-fda-to-make-morning-after-pill-available-over-the-counterfor-all-ages.html.
24 See for example, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, “Committee Launches Investigation into
Commerce Department’s Involvement in NOAA Actions Regarding Hurricane Dorian,” press release, September 11,
2019, https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-launches-investigation-into-commerce-departmentsinvolvement-in-noaa-actions-regarding-hurricane-dorian; and Nick Sobczyk, “IG Details White House Pressure in
‘Sharpiegate,’” E&E News, July 20, 2020, https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1063539975.
25 U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, Evaluation of NOAA’s September 6, 2019, Statement
About Hurricane Dorian Forecasts, OIG-20-032-I, June 26, 2020, p. 1, https://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/
OIG-20-032-I.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
At the request of NOAA, the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) conducted an
independent investigation of allegations of misconduct by NOAA officials related to the event
and found that they violated NOAA’s Scientific Integrity Policy.26
In 2020, media reports raised concerns among some Members of Congress and others that
political appointees in the Trump Administration violated the scientific integrity policies of
federal agencies, including concerns associated with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) and the COVID-19 pandemic.27 For example, on September 24, 2020,
Democratic leadership of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce requested that the
Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General open an investigation “to
determine whether and to what extent the White House, or its political appointees, have interfered
with or politicized the scientific work of CDC during the COVID-19 response.”28 In 2022,
majority and minority staff reports and other documents released by the House Select
Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis allege scientific integrity violations against both the
current and previous Administrations in their response to the pandemic.29
Additionally, in 2022, media reports have called into question the role of Trump political
appointees in EPA’s decisionmaking related to various chemicals (e.g., atrazine) and some
Members of Congress have highlighted a violation of scientific integrity by Dr. Jane Lubchenco,
Deputy Director for Climate and Environment at OSTP, prior to joining the Biden
Administration.30
26 National Academy of Public Administration, An Independent Assessment of Allegations of Scientific Misconduct
Filed Under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Scientific Integrity Policy, Washington, DC, March
2020, pp. 2-3, https://www.napawash.org/uploads/NOAA_Scientific_Integrity_Final_Report_Redacted.pdf.
27 See for example, U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, “Democrats Call On
Republicans to Stand for Science, Support Bill to Stop Trump Administration’s Political Interference in COVID-19
Response,” press release, September 22, 2020, https://www.help.senate.gov/ranking/newsroom/press/democrats-callon-republicans-to-stand-for-science-support-bill-to-stop-trump-administrations-political-interference-in-covid-19response; Rebecca Ballhaus, Stephanie Armour and Betsy McKay, “A Demoralized CDC Grapples with White House
Meddling and Its Own Mistakes,” Wall Street Journal, October 15, 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-demoralizedcdc-grapples-with-white-house-meddling-and-its-own-mistakes-11602776561; German Lopez, “Trump’s Attempts to
Corrupt the CDC, Explained,” Vox, September 14, 2020, https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21436459/cdc-trumpmmrw-covid-19-coronavirus-pandemic; Helen Branswell, “As Controversies Swirl, CDC Director Is Seen as Allowing
Agency to Buckle to Political Influence,” STAT, September 16, 2020, https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/16/ascontroversies-swirl-cdc-director-is-seen-as-allowing-agency-to-buckle-to-political-influence/; Dan Diamond, “Trump
Officials Interfered with CDC Reports on COVID-19,” Politico, September 11, 2020, https://www.politico.com/news/
2020/09/11/exclusive-trump-officials-interfered-with-cdc-reports-on-covid-19-412809; and Eli Rosenberg, “The CDC
Softened a Report on Meatpacking Safety During the Pandemic. Democrats Say They Want to Know Why,”
Washington Post, September 30, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/30/cdc-meatpackingsmithfield/.
28 Letter from Frank Pallone, Jr., Chair, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Anna G. Eshoo, Chair,
Subcommittee on Health, and Diana DeGette, Chair, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, to Ms. Christi A.
Grimm, Principal Deputy Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, September 24, 2020, https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/
documents/HHS%20OIG.2020.9.24..pdf.
29 See for example, Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, “New Select Subcommittee Report Details Trump
Administration’s Assault on CDC and Politicization of Public Health During the Coronavirus Crisis,” press release,
October 17, 2022, https://coronavirus.house.gov/news/press-releases/clyburn-trump-cdc-redfield-caputo-report and
Committee on Oversight and Reform, “Scalise Blasts Democrats’ Failures; Releases Key Findings from Select
Subcommittee Republicans’ Investigation,” press release, October 19, 2022, https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/
release/scalise-blasts-democrats-failures-releases-key-findings-from-select-subcommittee-republicans-investigation/.
30 E.A. Crunden, “Trump Admin Tried to Blunt EPA Review of Popular Weedkiller,” Greenwire, July 21, 2022,
https://www.eenews.net/articles/trump-admin-tried-to-blunt-epa-review-of-popular-weedkiller/, and Kelsey Burger,
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
Assessment and Review of Federal Scientific
Integrity Policies
In 2016, the Institute for Defense Analysis’s Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI)—a
federally funded research and development center—conducted a review of federal agency
scientific integrity policies “to identify potential good practices for meeting or exceeding the
principles identified in the 2010 OSTP memorandum, and to suggest ways of strengthening the
policies to reflect current interests and developments.”31 According to STPI, “most agency
policies address all of the principles” detailed in the 2010 OSTP memorandum, but “a small
number of agency policies do not explicitly respond to each component of the memo.”32 For
example, four agencies did not include information describing whether or how the agency would
provide “articulate and knowledgeable spokespersons” who could speak in an objective,
nonpartisan manner about science and technology in response to media requests.33 Furthermore,
during the course of the review, STPI identified four areas where the scientific integrity policies
of federal agencies varied significantly, including
whether or how an agency’s policy defines the term scientific integrity (e.g.,
most agencies did not define scientific integrity, while others defined the loss or
breach of scientific integrity instead of defining the term itself);
the scope of persons and activities covered by an agency’s scientific integrity
policy (e.g., some agencies included contractors and grantees, in addition to
federal employees);
who has responsibility for implementing the agency’s scientific integrity policy
and where within the agency’s organizational structure the individual and entity
responsible for oversight of the policy resides (e.g., some agencies have assigned
the responsibility of ensuring scientific integrity to the highest ranking
nonpolitical official, while others have assigned the responsibility to their chief
scientist); and
the relationship between the agency’s research misconduct policy and its
scientific integrity policy (e.g., some agencies merged their research misconduct
policies into their scientific integrity policies, while others developed a distinct
scientific integrity policy).34
STPI also found that a number of federal agency scientific integrity policies extended beyond the
principles and elements contained in the 2010 OSTP memorandum. In this regard, STPI identified
eight elements that they viewed as having the potential to make an agency’s scientific integrity
policy more comprehensive:
“House Republicans Probe White House Science Office Deputy,” E&E News PM, September, 22, 2022,
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2022/09/22/top-house-lawmakers-seek-info-on-white-house-scienceoffice-deputy-00058410.
31 Rashida Nek and Anita R. Eisenstadt, Review of Federal Agency Policies on Scientific Integrity, IDA Science and
Technology Policy Institute, Washington, DC, December 2016, pp. iii-iv, https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/
publications/r/re/review-of-federal-agency-policies-on-scientific-integrity/d-8305.ashx.
32 Ibid., p. 7.
33 Ibid., pp. 8-9. Tables 1 through 4 of the report tally the number of agencies reviewed that implemented each of the
principles or subcomponents of the principles contained in the 2010 OSTP memorandum.
34 Ibid., pp. 11-23.
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
providing a context for how and why scientific integrity is important to the
agency’s mission;
describing which persons and activities are covered under the policy;
defining key terms used in the policy;
designating entities responsible for agency oversight of scientific integrity;
designating entities responsible for handling allegations of breaches of scientific
integrity and procedures;
referencing other related policies such as scientific codes of conduct, research
misconduct, conflict of interest, or data quality;
citing legal authorities for the policy; and
outlining an approach for resolving differences in scientific opinions.35
In April 2019, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report that examined
the scientific integrity policies of nine federal entities—the Agricultural Research Service (ARS),
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), Office of Fossil Energy (FE), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to GAO,
ARS, FAA, and FE follow scientific integrity policies developed by their departments—the
Departments of Agriculture, Transportation, and Energy, respectively—and GAO examined the
department-level scientific integrity policy in lieu of an entity-specific scientific integrity policy.
GAO concluded the following:
All nine of the selected agencies have established scientific integrity policies that are
generally consistent with principles specified in OSTP’s guidance and have taken some
action to help ensure that the objectives of their scientific integrity policies are achieved.
In addition, seven of the nine selected agencies have taken actions to educate and
communicate to staff about their scientific integrity policies, but DOE and NIST did not
take such actions aside from making policies available on agency websites. By taking
action to educate and communicate their scientific integrity polices to staff through, for
example, regular training, the two agencies would have better assurance that their
employees have the information, skills, and competencies they need to help achieve their
scientific integrity objectives.
Further, eight of the selected agencies designated a scientific integrity official, or the
equivalent, who oversees implementation of their scientific integrity policies. However,
FE does not have such an official because its department, DOE, has not yet designated one
and DOE has not established steps or a time frame to designate the official. By establishing
steps and a time frame to fill the scientific integrity official position, DOE would be better
positioned to achieve the objectives of its scientific integrity policy.
Furthermore, while four of the nine selected agencies have taken steps to evaluate and
monitor implementation of their scientific integrity policies, the other five—FE, FAA,
NIST, NOAA, and USGS—have not taken action to do so. By establishing mechanisms to
monitor the implementation of their scientific integrity policies, these five agencies would
be better positioned to know whether their policies are achieving their objectives and what
improvements are necessary.
Finally, while seven of the nine selected agencies have specific, documented procedures
for identifying and addressing alleged violations of their scientific integrity policies, two
35 Ibid., p. 9.
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
agencies—FE and NASA—do not have such procedures. Without developing documented
procedures for identifying and addressing violations of their scientific integrity policies,
DOE and NASA do not have assurance that all staff have a clear understanding of how to
report allegations and that investigations will be conducted consistently. 36
In January 2022, the interagency task force required by the 2021 presidential memorandum to
review the effectiveness of federal agency scientific integrity policies concluded “that while
Federal science is fundamentally sound, it remains subject to political and other forms of
interference that can undermine Federal decision-making and erode public trust in science.”37 The
task force also found
To protect the integrity of Federal science, scientific integrity policies need to be put in
place at all Federal agencies and include all staff engaged in the conduct, management,
communication, and use of science. Additional efforts are needed to foster good practices
for policy implementation across Federal agencies, institutionalize scientific integrity
within and across agencies, and improve accountability for violations of scientific integrity.
Fundamental to these efforts is sustaining the professionalism of the Federal scientific
workforce: protecting the ability of Federal scientists to disagree and engage in vigorous
debate about scientific methodologies, findings, and conclusions; and ensuring Federal
scientists can communicate their science to various audiences without censorship or other
interference.38
In April 2022, GAO released a report examining the procedures in place at NIH, CDC, the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and
Response (ASPR) to address allegations of political interference in scientific decisionmaking and
available training provided by such agencies.39 GAO found that that the agencies “do not have
procedures that define political interference in scientific decision-making or describe how it
should be reported and addressed.”40 In addition, only NIH includes information on political
interference as part of its scientific integrity training. According to GAO,
The absence of specific procedures may explain why the four selected agencies did not
identify any formally reported internal allegations of potential political interference in
scientific decision-making from 2010 through 2021.Through semi-structured interviews
and a confidential hotline, employees at CDC, FDA, and NIH told GAO they observed
incidents that they perceived to be political interference but did not report them for various
reasons.41
36 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Scientific Integrity Policies: Additional Actions Could Strengthen Integrity
of Federal Research, GAO-19-265, April 4, 2019, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-265.
37 Scientific Integrity Fast-Track Action Committee of the National Science and Technology Council, Protecting the
Integrity of Government Science, Executive Office of the President of the United States, 2022, p. 44,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/01-22Protecting_the_Integrity_of_Government_Science.pdf.
38 Ibid.
39 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Scientific Integrity: HHS Agencies Need to Develop Procedures and Train
Staff on Reporting and Addressing Political Interference, GAO-22-104613, April 20, 2022, https://www.gao.gov/
products/gao-22-104613.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
Issues for Consideration
Outside observers have suggested that the scientific integrity policies developed by federal
agencies under the 2010 OSTP memorandum vary in scope and specificity and that legislation
could contribute to greater uniformity and foster the development of clear standards and
mechanisms for enforcement.42 The following section provides an overview of the areas where
there may be opportunities for alignment of scientific integrity policies across federal agencies.
Monitoring and Evaluating Policy Effectiveness
GAO found that the majority of agencies reviewed had not taken steps to evaluate and monitor
implementation of their scientific integrity policies.43 Agencies that have taken steps to monitor
and evaluate the implementation of their scientific integrity policies have found areas for
improvement. For example, an examination of EPA’s scientific integrity policy by the agency’s
Office of Inspector General (EPA OIG) found that while the majority of employees were satisfied
with the overall implementation of the agency’s scientific integrity policy most were dissatisfied
with the state of EPA’s culture of scientific integrity and the release of scientific information to
the public. EPA’s OIG also found that EPA had not finalized its procedures for addressing
potential violations of the scientific integrity policy, mandatory training was not tracked, and
annual reporting was not timely.44 Additionally, a survey conducted by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General (USDA OIG) found
approximately 18 percent of the respondents [USDA scientists] were unaware of the SIP
[scientific integrity policy], almost 33 percent did not explicitly recall whether or how they
took SIP training, and about 85 percent did not comprehend or expressed no opinion on the
benefits of the SIP.45
The USDA OIG recommended that the Office of Chief Scientist (the entity responsible for the
development and implementation of USDA’s scientific integrity policy) “evaluate methods of
outreach to the Department’s scientists to determine the most effective type of training.”46
On March 3, 2022, the interagency task force required by the 2021 presidential memorandum
issued a request for information to assist in the development of a framework “that OSTP and
agencies can use to inform, review, and improve the content and implementation of agency
scientific-integrity policies.”47 The task force requested information on
42 For example, see Preet Bharara, Christine Todd Whitman, and Mike Castle, et al., National Task Force on Rule of
Law and Democracy: Proposal for Reform Volume II, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of
Law, October 3, 2019, pp. 7-8, https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/
2019_10_TaskForce%20II_0.pdf; and Roger Pielke Jr and Neal Lane, “Memo for President Biden: Five Steps to
Getting More from Science,” Nature, November 8, 2020, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03148-w.
43 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Scientific Integrity Policies: Additional Actions Could Strengthen Integrity
of Federal Research, GAO-19-265, April 4, 2019, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-265.
44 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Further Efforts Needed to Uphold Scientific
Integrity Policy at EPA, 20-P-0173, May 20, 2020, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-05/documents/
_epaoig_20200520-20-p-0173.pdf.
45 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Reviewing the Integrity of USDA’s Scientific Research
Program, Audit Report 50601-0006-31, February 2018, p. 13, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/50601-000631.pdf.
46 Ibid., p. 19.
47 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Request for Information to Support the Development of a
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
(1) How scientific integrity policies can address important and emergent issues of our time,
including diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility; new technologies; emerging modes
of science; and coordination with related policy domains;
(2) The criteria to evaluate scientific integrity policy content, implementation, outcomes
and impacts in the Executive Branch;
(3) How to ensure that scientific integrity evaluation findings lead to effective iterative
improvement of Federal scientific integrity policy and practices; and
(4) How to ensure the long-term viability and implementation of Federal scientific integrity
policies, practices, and culture through future Administrations. 48
Reporting and Enforcement of Alleged Violations
GAO found that the scientific integrity policies of NASA and DOE lack specific, documented
procedures for reporting and addressing alleged violations.49 In addition, others have indicated a
need to ensure that any documented policies and procedures are consistent with whistleblower
protections or other worker protection laws.50 According to STPI, many federal agencies
incorporate or reference existing policies, including scientific codes of conduct, conflict of
interest, data quality, Federal Advisory Committee procedures, and fraud, waste or abuse, into
their scientific integrity policies. Because of this overlap, agency officials often need to determine
whether allegations fall under the scope of the scientific integrity policy or a related policy. This
determination may have an impact on who is responsible for investigating the allegation. It also
could result in different procedures or rights of appeal.51
Alleged violations of scientific integrity may involve high-ranking political officials. In such
cases, agencies may wish to have clear policies and procedures for determining if and when
another agency or outside entity should assume responsibility for investigating such allegations. A
number of stakeholders have called for increased transparency in federal decisionmaking.52 For
example, the Brennan Center for Justice’s Task Force on Rule of Law and Democracy have
recommended that Congress enact legislation that would require federal agencies to maintain a
log of contacts between senior political officials with supervisory authority and federal agency
scientists and to publish reports based on the log. The log would document “any communications
about the substance of scientific research, data, and expert analysis related to proposed
Federal Scientific Integrity Policy Framework,” 87 Federal Register 12165-12167, March 3, 2022.
48 Ibid.
49 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Scientific Integrity Policies: Additional Actions Could Strengthen Integrity
of Federal Research, GAO-19-265, April 4, 2019, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-265.
50 Testimony of Michael Halpern, Deputy Director, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists
in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight and Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Scientific Integrity in Federal Agencies, hearing, 116th
Cong., 1st sess., July 17, 2019; and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Patterns in Scientific Integrity
Policies, July 2013, p. 2, https://www.peer.org/wp-content/uploads/attachments/Patterns_in-SIPs.pdf.
51 Rashida Nek and Anita R. Eisenstadt, Review of Federal Agency Policies on Scientific Integrity, IDA Science and
Technology Policy Institute, Washington, DC, December 2016, p. 33.
52 See, for example, Science for Policy Project, Improving the Use of Science in Regulatory Policy, Bipartisan Policy
Center, 2009, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/default/files/BPC%20Science%20Report%20fnl.pdf;
Gretchen Goldman, Genna Reed, and Michael Halpern, et al., Preserving Scientific Integrity in Federal Policymaking:
Lessons from the Past Two Administrations and What’s at Stake Under the Trump Administration, Union of Concerned
Scientists, Cambridge, MA, January 2017, pp. 31-32; and Holly Doremus, “Scientific and Political Integrity in
Environmental Policy,” Texas Law Review, vol. 86, March 23, 2008, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=1112802.
Congressional Research Service
14
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
regulations and scientific reports prepared for Congress and the public.”53 Additionally, Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility, an advocacy organization, recommended that
Congress clarify what documents and information must be included in the administrative record
supporting federal agency decisionmaking.54
Intra and Interagency Coordination of Scientific Integrity Policies
The 2010 OSTP memorandum focused on the development and implementation of scientific
integrity policies within a federal agency and did not provide guidance or outline a structure for
addressing scientific integrity concerns involving multiple federal agencies. For example, as
noted by STPI, there is no process or mechanism “for addressing scientific integrity issues arising
when there is a conflict between scientific findings made by one agency and the policy decisions
at another agency that are based upon the same scientific findings.”55 It is also unclear how an
alleged violation of scientific integrity involving individuals from multiple agencies would be
coordinated and investigated.
Additionally, the scientific integrity concerns surrounding NOAA’s forecast for Hurricane Dorian
(described above) illustrate the potential for disconnect between a department-wide scientific
integrity policy and the scientific integrity policy of an individual agency or bureau within a
department. As part of the decision memorandum associated with the allegations of scientific
misconduct related to Hurricane Dorian, Dr. Stephen M. Volz, Assistant Administrator for
Satellite and Information Services at NOAA, recommended:
The Department of Commerce should establish a scientific integrity policy, covering the
career and political leadership at Commerce. Commerce’s policy should be complementary
to the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy. The NOAA policy has been successfully
implemented and applied to NOAA issues and should be validated. Commerce should
consider an umbrella directive that documents how Commerce works in coordination with
the policies of the individual bureaus and agencies, and as a default allows the bureau or
agency policies to be applied first to investigations. 56
In its assessment of the allegations of scientific misconduct associated with Hurricane Dorian,
NAPA recommended the establishment of “an intra-agency policy to articulate the role of
Commerce political appointees in the communication of scientific findings,” in addition to the
development of supporting procedures and examples of political interference.57
53 Preet Bharara, Christine Todd Whitman, and Mike Castle, et al., National Task Force on Rule of Law and
Democracy: Proposal for Reform Volume II, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law,
October 3, 2019, pp. 8-9.
54 Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, “Alternative Facts on the Rise in Federal Decision Records,”
press release, January 31, 2019, https://www.peer.org/alternative-facts-on-the-rise-in-federal-decision-records/.
55 Rashida Nek and Anita R. Eisenstadt, Review of Federal Agency Policies on Scientific Integrity, IDA Science and
Technology Policy Institute, Washington, DC, December 2016, p. 33.
56 Stephen M. Volz, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator for Satellite and Information Services, Scientific Integrity
Determining Official (Delegated), Final Decision on Allegations of Scientific Misconduct Nos. 2019-007, 2019-008,
2019-009, 2019-010, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, June 15, 2020, p. 8, https://nrc.noaa.gov/
Portals/0/SIC/Memo%20for%20the%20Record%20Scientific%20Misconduct%202019-007%20to%202019101%20Final.pdf?ver=2020-06-15-104657-903.
57 National Academy of Public Administration, An Independent Assessment of Allegations of Scientific Misconduct
Filed Under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Scientific Integrity Policy, Washington, DC, March
2020, p. 57.
Congressional Research Service
15
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
Designation of a Scientific Integrity Officer
The Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy organization, recommends the establishment or
designation of a scientific integrity officer who would have explicit responsibility for the
implementation of a federal agency’s scientific integrity policy.58 According to GAO, while the
Department of Energy lacked a scientific integrity official most of the agencies it reviewed had
designated such an official to oversee the agency’s scientific integrity policy.59 STPI indicated
that the assignment of responsibility to a particular individual
can set the tone for the overall scientific integrity culture at the agency. The individual and
entity responsible for oversight of the policy needs to be perceived as having sufficient
authority to handle allegations of breach of scientific integrity involving high-level political
officials.60
As a result, many federal agencies assign the responsibility of scientific integrity to the highest
nonpolitical official at the agency.
Options for Congress
The issues described above represent a potential framework for Congress to address gaps and
align scientific integrity policies across federal agencies. Federal agencies are likely to address
some of the potential concerns described above in response to the 2021 presidential
memorandum. As such, Congress might consider conducting oversight on implementation of the
2021 presidential memorandum. Congress, however, might also consider legislation that includes
one or more of the following actions.
Requiring federal agencies to regularly assess the effectiveness of their scientific
integrity policies.
Directing federal agencies to conduct periodic outreach and training associated
with their scientific integrity policies.
Ensuring each federal agency has a documented procedure for reporting and
addressing alleged violations, in addition to directing federal agencies to clarify
how their scientific integrity policy and other related policies align.
Increasing transparency into the implementation of federal agency scientific
integrity policies, including by directing federal agencies to publicly report on
allegations of violations of such policies and how such issues were resolved.
Directing GAO or another entity to assess the effectiveness of federal agency
scientific integrity policies and/or interagency coordination and the sharing of
best practices. Such work could consider the uniformity of scientific integrity
policies across the federal government.
58 Gretchen Goldman, Genna Reed, and Michael Halpern, et al., Preserving Scientific Integrity in Federal
Policymaking: Lessons from the Past Two Administrations and What’s at Stake Under the Trump Administration,
Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA, January 2017, p. 14.
59 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Scientific Integrity Policies: Additional Actions Could Strengthen Integrity
of Federal Research, GAO-19-265, April 4, 2019, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-265.
60 Rashida Nek and Anita R. Eisenstadt, Review of Federal Agency Policies on Scientific Integrity, IDA Science and
Technology Policy Institute, Washington, DC, December 2016, p. 17.
Congressional Research Service
16
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
Requiring the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in conjunction with
federal agencies, to develop specific policies and procedures for addressing
scientific integrity concerns that span multiple federal agencies, including the
Congressional Research Service
17
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
establishment of protocols for when another federal agency, Office of Inspector
General, or outside entity should be responsible for investigating alleged
violations of scientific integrity.
Requiring federal agencies to ensure that their scientific integrity policies align
with and complement department-wide scientific integrity policies.
Requiring federal agencies to designate a scientific integrity officer within the
agency, in addition to specifying whom such individual reports to and their
position within the agency’s organizational structure.
Author Information
Marcy E. Gallo
Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service
R46614 · VERSION 7 · UPDATED
18
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.