The Trump Administration’s Misleading Executive Order on Science
On the Friday afternoon before Memorial Day, the Trump administration released an Executive Order (EO) that claims to improve the science used to inform federal policy. However, a closer look reveals that the EO falls short of its intended purpose. Let’s delve into the layers of misleading text to uncover what this EO truly entails.
A Flawed Premise
Right from the start, the EO’s lack of citations for the sweeping claims made in the “Policy and Purpose” section raises doubts about the authors’ understanding of scientific standards. The justification for the EO’s changes based on the public’s distrust of science is unsupported by evidence, as studies show a high level of trust in science compared to other professions. This EO is crucial to monitor as it impacts how the government uses science to make decisions affecting public health and infrastructure. Unfortunately, instead of addressing issues of suppressing or distorting science, this EO enables deception and undermines public trust.
The Requirements section outlines basic scientific principles that federal science must adhere to, including reproducibility, transparency, and collaboration. However, the absence of the word “independent” raises concerns about bias towards favored industries or ideological preferences. In the current climate of attacks on academic institutions and cuts to scientific funding, this EO sets the stage for political appointees to control science and disregard evidence that contradicts the administration’s agenda.
A Troubling Process of Dismissing Science
One alarming aspect of the EO is its focus on transparency and reproducibility in science. While these are essential components of the scientific method, the EO’s requirements for federal agencies to provide all scientific information, including data and models, raise red flags. The subjective application of these criteria by political appointees could lead to the politicization of science and biased decision-making. This tactic echoes past efforts by industries to suppress scientific evidence that threatens their interests.
The EO’s use of terms like “sensitive personal information” and “confidential business information” introduces complexities in data sharing, particularly in public health studies. The history of industry manipulation to exclude health-harming data from policy-making decisions underscores the risks of prioritizing transparency over privacy. Balancing data transparency with privacy protection is crucial to prevent misuse of sensitive information for political gain.
Undermining Trust in Science
The EO’s requirement for a “re-review” of regulations and scientific evaluations sets a dangerous precedent for disregarding established scientific findings. This tactic, borrowed from industry disinformation campaigns, aims to cast doubt on scientific evidence and influence policy decisions. By subjecting scientific studies to political scrutiny, the EO undermines the integrity of the scientific process and threatens the public’s trust in science.
Promoting Genuine Scientific Standards
To safeguard science from politicization, enacting scientific integrity policies is essential. The Biden administration’s EO on scientific integrity made significant progress in this regard by establishing a scientific integrity taskforce and promoting ethical behavior in scientific activities. In contrast, the Trump administration’s EO regresses scientific integrity policies and favors political interference over evidence-based policymaking.
As efforts to pass the Scientific Integrity Act gain momentum in Congress, there is hope for protecting federal science from political influence. By advocating for strong scientific integrity policies, we can ensure that science remains independent, transparent, and free from external bias. Saving science saves lives, and it’s crucial to speak up for the integrity of scientific research.
