Trump Administration Issues Guidance on “Gold Standard Science” Executive Order
This week, the Trump White House released guidance on how the federal government should implement its “Gold Standard Science” executive order. Alongside this guidance, the administration’s Science Advisor to the President, Michael Kratsios, published an editorial in Science titled “Sound policy demands sound science.”
In his editorial, Kratsios claims to be addressing issues in the scientific community related to strengthening scientific rigor, reproducibility, and integrity. However, many in the scientific community, myself included, believe that the administration’s approach falls short of addressing these concerns adequately.
While the goals outlined in the new guidance align with the scientific community’s desire to enhance the rigor, accessibility, and transparency of federal science, there are underlying elements that raise red flags. The language used sets a precedent for the administration to potentially undermine science-based policy, following a playbook seen in previous administrations and industries.
A Missed Opportunity for Advancing Federal Science
During the Biden-Harris administration, efforts were made to strengthen scientific integrity across the government and improve public trust in science. Progress was made in implementing comprehensive scientific integrity policies and officers across federal agencies, setting the stage for further advancements in protecting scientific processes and information in government activities.
While the Trump administration had the opportunity to build upon these efforts and elevate federal science to new heights, the recent executive order and guidance seem to be more focused on political motives rather than genuine scientific advancement. The directive to agencies to dismantle policies developed during the previous administration raises concerns about the true intentions behind the new approach.
Challenges in Upholding Rigorous, Independent Science
One particularly concerning aspect of the guidance is the endorsement of adversarial collaborations, reminiscent of the controversial “red team blue team” exercise in climate science. This approach risks giving undue legitimacy to skepticism in scientific debates, undermining the credibility of established scientific findings.
Instead of veering towards politicizing science, there is a pressing need to focus on genuine efforts to improve the production and utilization of science in federal decision-making processes. By engaging with diverse stakeholders, drawing insights from various sectors, and incorporating the latest research on science-policy interactions, we can pave the way for more robust and independent scientific practices in government settings.
It is essential to move beyond rhetoric and prioritize concrete actions that support evidence-based decision-making and uphold the integrity of federal science. By engaging in meaningful dialogue and collaborative efforts, we can navigate the complexities of integrating science into policy effectively.
