In the last days of the Biden administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its long-awaited revised scientific integrity policy. This policy is designed to ensure that scientists can conduct their work without political interference and communicate with the public about their findings. In the words of the policy itself, it “does not bind decision-makers to particular policy outcomes but rather lays out processes and practices to ensure that the best available science is presented to agency decision-makers and informs the agency’s work.”
Why do these policies matter? Because government agencies need to have access to the best available science to safeguard public health. When a hurricane is on the way, the National Weather Service needs to be able to predict its likely path so people can evacuate. When a pandemic strikes, the Department of Health and Human Services should be a trusted source of information about how the disease is transmitted and what kinds of actions can slow its spread. When EPA is carrying out its responsibilities under the Clean Water Act, it needs to know what the latest high-quality research indicates about health harms associated with various pollutants.
These agencies, and others, employ many experts who conduct research and summarize evidence. The leaders responsible for deciding where to deploy disaster assistance or pandemic prevention resources rely on these experts to give them high-quality information and advice. As we’ve seen all too often, though, scientists can face pressure to change or keep quiet about their findings—whether they’re being urged to alter the predicted path of a hurricane to help a president save face, downplay the severity of a pandemic, or stay silent about the health risks associated with a widespread water contaminant. Accurate information about hazards can save lives. Suppressing and distorting information can kill.
Presidential directives on scientific integrity
Agencies across the US government have had scientific integrity policies for many years, following President Barack Obama’s 2009 presidential memorandum directing that “Each agency should have appropriate rules and procedures to ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the agency.” This memo followed attacks on science during the Bush administration, including leaders ignoring the advice of experts on ozone pollution; suppressing a report on fuel economy; and restricting EPA scientists’ ability to publish, present, or speak to the media about their findings.
EPA’s first scientific integrity policy took effect in 2012. In 2017 UCS graded several agencies’ scientific integrity policies and found wide variation in their strength, scope, and completeness. That analysis and several troubling events showed that stronger policies were needed. UCS documented several attacks on science during the Obama administration—like EPA downplaying the risks of fracking contaminating drinking water—and more than 200 during the Trump administration.
During his first week in office, President Joe Biden issued a memorandum that built on former President Obama’s directive. It noted that interfering with the work of those involved with government science “violates the trust that the public places in government to best serve its collective interests.” The memo tasked the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) with ensuring all agencies “establish and enforce scientific-integrity policies that ban improper political interference in the conduct of scientific research and in the collection of scientific or technological data, and that prevent the suppression or distortion of scientific or technological findings, data, information, conclusions, or technical results.”
President Biden’s memo also directed OSTP to establish a Task Force on Scientific Integrity to review existing scientific integrity policies and to develop a framework to help agencies either revise their existing scientific integrity policies or create new ones. It specified that the framework should include criteria for assessing and improving these policies. OSTP solicited public input and convened a working group, and in January 2023 released a framework that contained a model scientific integrity policy. Agencies were then required to submit drafts of their new or updated policies to OSTP and the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Scientific Integrity for review, and encouraged (though not required) to release them to the public and accept comments to inform revisions.
EPA was one of only a few agencies that published an announcement in the Federal Register—the official avenue for alerting the public to proposals open for public comment—and invited comments on their draft scientific integrity policy in early 2024. (UCS was one of several organizations that praised aspects of the draft policy and recommended ways to strengthen it.) This openness earned EPA one of the highest scores in a 2024 UCS report that examined agencies’ progress on scientific integrity and recommended ways for the next administration to strengthen scientific integrity.
Inside EPA’s policy
The final version of EPA’s policy addresses several aspects of scientific integrity. It specifies that research should use “proper and appropriate methods” and prohibits “interference, inappropriate influence, suppression, or unreasonable delay” in not only how scientific research is conducted but in how its findings are reported. Its section on clearance procedures specifies what kinds of changes managers can make to scientific products while reviewing them for dissemination and forbids “unreasonable delay and suppression of scientific products without scientific justification.” The section on communication supports agency employees’ participation in communication with the media regarding their areas of expertise and states that they are allowed to review and correct the scientific content of proposed agency communications that describe their research or analysis. The policy specifies that it is agency policy to “Ensure the quality and accuracy of scientific information used to support policy and decision making.”
In addition to items that address how EPA will conduct, communicate about, and use science, the policy contains several items that acknowledge the importance of agency scientists being able to participate in the larger scientific community. A section on professional development encourages timely publication of research findings at scholarly journals, attendance at professional meetings, participation on editorial boards and as editors of scholarly journals, and “outreach and engagement activities related to science, such as speaking to community and student groups, as part of their official duties.” These kinds of activities help scientists keep up to date on developments in their field, and they can also help the public gain a better understanding of and appreciation for their work.
Local 238 of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents many EPA employees, recognized the importance of the agency’s scientific integrity policy when they included provisions from it in their 2024 collective bargaining agreement.
As important as all of this progress is, there’s reason to be concerned about future implementation of scientific integrity policies at EPA and other agencies. We don’t yet know whether, or how, the new Trump administration will issue any directives regarding scientific integrity policies at government agencies. But the change in administration doesn’t change the need for these protections. Executive branch officials should recognize that, as EPA’s policy notes, scientific integrity is essential “both to ensure the validity of scientific information and to engender public trust in the agency.” I hope incoming agency leaders will recognize that trust in government should be supported rather than squandered, and that scientific integrity is essential for keeping all of us safe. No matter who’s running government agencies, they can and must support and follow strong scientific integrity policies.