The work that federal agencies do has real consequences for people across the country—and it matters who leads those agencies. That’s why today, 28 organizations sent a letter to the Senators who head committees responsible for considering key nominees and urged them to vote against “nominees who lack the necessary qualifications, have serious conflicts of interest, or fail to recognize any scientific consensus relevant to their agency.” The letter also suggests questions for Senators to ask nominees during hearings to gauge their commitment to scientific integrity.
Several of the organizations that signed the letter also endorsed a 2018 report that highlighted instances of Trump administration nominees and appointees who weren’t qualified for the job or had such extensive conflicts of interest that they couldn’t follow ethics guidelines without recusing themselves from large portions of the agency’s work. Sam Clovis, for instance, was nominated to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s top science post, despite his lack of academic credentials in hard science. And former CDC director Brenda Fitzgerald had so many investment-related recusals that she couldn’t testify before Congress on issues such as the opioid crisis and cancer detection, and she eventually resigned when reporters discovered she had purchased tobacco stocks while working at CDC. If the public sees appointees potentially gaining personal profit from their agencies’ actions, public trust in government — already alarmingly low — is likely to decline further.
Not all agency leadership positions require science degrees, but anyone who wants to lead an agency should be able to demonstrate that they will respect the work of that agency’s scientists and refrain from interfering with it. One disturbing nominee whose history does not suggest a respect for science is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who President-elect Donald Trump has nominated to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Kennedy has spread misinformation on several health topics, including claiming that no vaccine is safe and effective, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Given that history, he’s unlikely to listen to the many HHS scientists whose work should inform the HHS secretary’s decisions. We also can’t be confident that he’d let those scientists do their jobs—like collecting and distributing information on the spread of the H5N1 virus, or “bird flu,” that local health departments need to protect their communities. The willful disregard of science by agency leaders can put people in real danger.
Making sure scientists can do their jobs without interference is a key component of scientific integrity. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy defined scientific integrity:
“Scientific integrity is the adherence to professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about science and scientific activities. Inclusivity, transparency, and protection from inappropriate influence are hallmarks of scientific integrity.”
Scientific integrity is essential for ensuring that leaders and the public have reliable information on which to base their decisions. If the bird flu that’s been circulating in US poultry and cattle for several months becomes easily transmissible between humans and sparks another pandemic, we need to be able to trust that government scientists are collecting data on how the virus is spreading and studying what mechanisms can slow its spread. We shouldn’t have to worry that a political appointee is trying to alter CDC scientific reports, something we saw during the Trump administration early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientific integrity doesn’t require that an agency head like the HHS Secretary make any particular decision based on what the scientists find; there will always be a variety of factors to consider. But agency leaders should listen to high-quality information and expert advice, and be transparent with the public about what’s informing their decisions.
The letter sent to Senators asks them to vote against any nominee who exhibits the following:
1) The absence of necessary qualifications—e.g., appropriate academic degree, relevant work experience, respect for the agency mission—to lead their agencies or programs.
2) Conflicts of interest that would a) make the public question whether the person is truly capable of representing the public’s best interest or b) require the person to recuse themselves from substantial portions of the agency’s work if they adhere to the agency ethics policy.
3) A failure to recognize scientific consensus relevant to their agency. For instance, a nominee should only be approved for a position in the Department of Health and Human Services if they acknowledge that decades of evidence show that the current childhood vaccine series is safe, effective, and responsible for the child death rate being far lower than it was in the pre-vaccine era.
4) A record of disregard for scientific integrity infrastructure. For instance, a nominee should not be approved if they have opposed efforts to strengthen scientific integrity or transparency at a company or organization.
Ensuring that appointees value scientific integrity can help our government agencies respond effectively to a range of challenges, from climate change to cyberattacks to disease outbreaks and pandemics. Failing to do so can put millions of lives at risk. And you can help. If you’re contacting your Senators about a nominee, consider referencing this letter and asking them to only approve nominees who show they have the appropriate qualifications, including respect for scientific integrity.