Scientific Integrity


Photo: USCapitol/Flickr

Attacking Science in Week One: How Congress is Trying to Dismantle Public Protections

, Washington representative, Center for Science and Democracy

You may have heard that Congress is back in session this week. The House of Representatives started off by trying to eviscerate their own independent ethics watchdog behind closed doors on a national holiday. The public noticed, raised hell, and forced the chamber to reverse course.

But the absurdity in the House continues. Over the next few days, votes are scheduled on two radical proposals designed to erode the ability of federal agencies to use science to protect public health, safety, and the environment. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

The EPA Withdraws Claim that Fracking has no “Widespread Systemic Impacts” on Drinking Water

, Research Director, Center for Science and Democracy

The EPA removed language claiming that hydraulic fracturing has no “widespread systemic impacts” on drinking water from its final report on the subject. The move follows criticism from its Science Advisory Board and revelations by Marketplace that the report’s executive summary and press release may have been edited by non-scientists. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

A New Presidency, A New Opportunity for Science

, Research Director, Center for Science and Democracy

Throughout its history, the US has benefited by applying science to public policy making. As national challenges become more complex, we rely on the federal government’s use of science to keep us safe and healthy. Science informs the safeguards and standards that protect us—from infectious disease to environmental pollution, from new drug approvals to consumer and worker safety. The next president has a chance to strengthen the long-standing role science has served in our democracy. I detail how in our newly released recommendations for the next administration. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

Talking Conflicts of Interest, Bias, and Sunshine in the Dietary Guidelines

, science and policy analyst, Center for Science and Democracy

Yesterday, I testified at a meeting of the National Academy of Medicine advisory committee to review the process to update the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. You might remember that Congress mandated the formation of this committee earlier this year. Their first charge is to write a report with recommendations on how the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) selection process can be improved to provide more transparency, minimize bias, and include committee members with a range of viewpoints. This is a topic we’ve thought a lot about here at the Center for Science and Democracy. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

Searching for Scientific Integrity in the Dietary Guidelines Report Process

, food systems & health analyst

Last Friday, on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, I testified at the USDA about the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The USDA invited stakeholders to comment on the process for developing the next Dietary Guidelines for Americans—which are updated every five years. Our comments centered around scientific integrity and the need to protect agency scientists from political interference. Read more >

Bookmark and Share