NPR's Morning Edition had a story today (which quotes my views) on the forthcoming "science integrity" guidelines that are way overdue from the Obama Administration. One factor helping to shake them loose is undoubtedly a lawsuit filed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (see this PDF). (David Bruggeman has a good set of discussions.)
I am the first to admit that the process has been more laborious and time-consuming than expected at the outset. Determining how to elaborate on the principles set forth in the Memorandum in enough detail to be of real assistance in their implementation, while at the same time retaining sufficient generality to be applicable across Executive departments and agencies with a wide variety of missions and structures, has been particularly challenging.My guess is that once the guidelines are released their content will lead everyone to wonder why it took so long for them to be released and that they will represent the start of a process, rather than its conclusion. Such speculation has a short shelf-life as it seems that we'll find out soon enough.
9 comments:
Well, my own prediction is that they will either be so general as to be useless, or ignored the first time that following them would provide input from inconvenient parties. That's the general pattern, and this administration more than most.
Re: this quote from the Nature blog:
"It’s a discouraging development in a process that began with the rosy hopes raised by Barack Obama’s March 2009 memo promising to put sound science at the center of government policy-making."
I hope the integrity guidelines have as much focus on what might be "sound" science as on whether random science snippets should at the "center" of public policy.
Thanks for the link, Roger.
Sharon, the Nature blog poster was reading into the memo, as it doesn't make that promise. It focuses on process and transparency, I think properly, over definitions. That the process in developing the recommendations has not been transparent (the basis of the lawsuit Roger mentions is a lack of FOIA disclosure) is a horrible sign.
From the memo:
" 1. Within 120 days from the date of this memorandum, the Director shall develop recommendations for Presidential action designed to guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch, based on the following principles:
(a) 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;
(b) Each agency should have appropriate rules and procedures to ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the agency;
(c) 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;
(d) Except for information that is properly restricted from disclosure under procedures established in accordance with statute, regulation, Executive Order, or Presidential Memorandum, each agency should make available to the public the scientific or technological findings or conclusions considered or relied on in policy decisions;
(e) 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 be compromised; and
(f) 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 otherwise uses or prepares."
I'd argue the Department of Interior failure with its moratorium report breached these guidelines, at least with respect to f), and probably others. The presence of the Department's scientific integrity policy shows having something on paper isn't enough.
If there's to be value gained from these recommendations, it will be in what the agencies opt to do with them. OSTP lacks much political power to assert its authority (a perennial problem), and has handled this process badly enough to suggest it lacks the skills to manage its implementation.
Thanks for the clarification, David. I don't want to seem unnecessarily pedantic, but shouldn't we define what we mean by "scientific integrity" before we write direction about how to achieve it? Maybe a definition is there somewhere and you can help find it. for example, this quote:
"Clear and unambiguous codes of conduct for scientific activities and use of science in decision making will establish expectations of employees with regard to scientific integrity. Misconduct will not be tolerated. Allegations of misconduct will be investigated and disciplinary action will be taken, as appropriate." If you are not clear on what scientific integrity is, and how defined, how can you write codes of conduct?
I think the argument can be made for a post-citizenship social movement.
So the cover memo can be paraphrased as "We've signed on a few Nobelists, and we (well, Arlen Specter, really) have handed out a lot of money to scientists."
And the memo says "well, we'll try not to make it so gosh darned hard for scientists in the National Labs to get anything done"
On the bright side, that might be an improvement. I did my last sabbatical in a national lab., and the procedures are bizarre. On the dark side, it took two years to write a four page memo. On the extra bright side (given it comes from Holdren) it says nothing about involuntary sterilization of the masses. Well, for me it's a moot point, but I still hope for grandchildren.
@6
"On the extra bright side (given it comes from Holdren) it says nothing about involuntary sterilization of the masses."
Actually it's a push since it didn't rule it out either.
Remember there was nothing in any guidelines about using US citizens as involuntary test subjects for Syphilis, Radiation and LSD drug research and that all happened anyway.
Integrity? From John Holdren? Given his dissembling regarding the textbook he co-authored with the Ehrlichs, I'm expecting the Obama administration will hire a Madam to create guidelines for virtue and virginity.
Classic politics - when in doubt, brazen it out.
Holdren, infamous for being a disciple of Ehrlich, should be no where close to anything to do with creating guidelines on integrity.
Post a Comment