[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY
IN FEDERAL AGENCIES
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 17, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-39
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-036PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida Rico
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, Chairwoman
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana, Ranking Member
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
BEN McADAMS, Utah JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BILL FOSTER, Illinois
------
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
HON. MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey, Chairwoman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina,
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee Ranking Member
DON BEYER, Virginia ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
C O N T E N T S
July 17, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Jim Baird, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Mikie Sherrill, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Paul Tonko, Subcommittee on Research
and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Ralph Norman, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 15
Written Statement............................................ 16
Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 17
Witnesses:
Mr. John Neumann, Managing Director, Science, Technology
Assessment, and Analytics, U.S. Government Accountability
Office
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 21
Mr. Michael Halpern, Deputy Director, Center for Science and
Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists
Oral Statement............................................... 34
Written Statement............................................ 36
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Director, Sports Governance Center;
Professor, Environmental Studies Program, University of
Colorado Boulde
Oral Statement............................................... 58
Written Statement............................................ 60
Mr. Joel Clement, Arctic Initiative Senior Fellow, Belfer Center
for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School
of Government at Harvard University
Oral Statement............................................... 71
Written Statement............................................ 73
Discussion....................................................... 79
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. John Neumann, Managing Director, Science, Technology
Assessment, and Analytics, U.S. Government Accountability
Office......................................................... 106
Mr. Michael Halpern, Deputy Director, Center for Science and
Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists....................... 107
Mr. Joel Clement, Arctic Initiative Senior Fellow, Belfer Center
for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School
of Government at Harvard University............................ 116
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 120
Letters submitted by Representative Paul Tonko, Subcommittee on
Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 121
Correspondence submitted by Representative Ralph Norman, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 124
Letter submitted by Representative Jennifer Wexton, Subcommittee
on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 134
Document submitted by Representative Steve Cohen, Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight and Subcommittee on Research and
Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 137
Letter submitted by Representative Mikie Sherrill, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 139
SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY
IN FEDERAL AGENCIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology,
joint with the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m.,
in room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Haley
Stevens [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Research and
Technology] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. This hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at
any time.
Good morning, and thank you to our witnesses for being here
to discuss policies and procedures governing scientific
integrity at Federal agencies. Thank you to everyone who has
joined us here this morning.
Let me be clear among friends and witnesses. This is not a
Democratic or Republican issue. It's not about one
Administration or another. It is about ensuring public trust in
the conduct, dissemination, and use of scientific research in
the Federal Government. An overview of recent history is
essential.
In 2010, then-White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy Director, Dr. John Holdren, issued a memorandum that
laid out basic principles for the development and
implementation of scientific integrity policies at all
agencies. By the end of the Obama Administration, 24 Federal
agencies had published scientific integrity policies consistent
with the intent of the memo.
My friend Congressman Mr. Tonko took note of this positive
executive action and decided it was worthwhile to codify the
principles into law. Notably, he started drafting a bill
several months prior to the 2016 election when there was every
chance that there would be another similar Administration in
January 2017.
The Scientific Integrity Act is straightforward. It
outlines prohibited conduct for employees of Federal agencies
that conduct scientific research. This includes suppressing
scientific findings or coercing others to suppress scientific
findings. It defines the rights and responsibilities of Federal
scientists in making public statements about their work to the
media, the scientific community, and the public. It directs
Federal agencies to develop, adopt, and enforce scientific
integrity policies that meet a number of specified criteria.
And it directs agencies to appoint a dedicated career
scientific integrity officer. How about that for a job?
H.R. 1709 does not make any instructions for any specific
agency or call out any particular misdeed. It is an
Administration-neutral and agency-neutral set of principles.
So why do this? First, it's not just good government. It
ensures transparency and accountability in government, which is
part of our Constitutional responsibility as the U.S. Congress,
and it ensures we are relying on facts and increasing evidence
around tested hypotheses regarding our most complex and nuanced
policy changes. We have seen this play out through history.
Second, it protects Federal scientists, but it does not
dictate science as law. There have been many publicized and an
unknown number of unpublicized cases in which the basic
principles of scientific integrity have been violated, and both
Federal employees and the taxpaying public suffer the
consequences. The people we represent here today in Congress
rely on government agencies who are there to serve the public,
to be able to do their job and establish trust, to keep people
safe and healthy by using the best available data, most
accurate data to inform their policies, regardless of politics.
Today, our government, Federal agencies must run as
effective organizations positioned for the most successful
outcomes possible, whereas our taxpayers receive that precious
but essential return on investment. Our biology, physics, and
chemistry are governed by a set of natural laws. Our civil
society is governed by a set of codified and recognized self-
evident laws described by the legends of our democracy. Today,
we strive for neutral territory to legislate within this very
chamber without the weight of dogma and ideology exclusively
dictating our work. We strive to embrace a peer review of
discovery and determination for new laws to exercise and lay
out our future.
As philosopher Baruch Spinoza, one of the early founders of
the Enlightenment period, said, ``There are those who are
governed by reason and they desire nothing for themselves which
they do not also desire for the rest of humankind.''
We have a phenomenal panel here today with diverse
expertise and research experience and perspectives on this
issue. I look forward to our engaged and essential discussion
and hearing your thoughts on scientific integrity.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Stevens follows:]
Good morning and thank you to the witnesses for being here
this morning to discuss policies and procedures governing
scientific integrity at Federal agencies.
Let me be clear among friends and witnesses. This is not a
Democratic or Republican issue. It's not about one
Administration or another. It is about ensuring public trust in
the conduct, dissemination, and use of scientific research in
the Federal government.
An overview of recent history is essential.
In 2010, then White House OSTP Director Dr. John Holdren
issued a memorandum that laid out basic principles for the
development and implementation of scientific integrity policies
at all agencies. By the end of the Obama Administration, 24
Federal agencies had published scientific integrity policies
consistent with the intent of the memo.
My friend Mr. Tonko took note of this positive executive
action, and decided it was worthwhile to codify the principles
in law. Notably, he started drafting a bill several months
prior to the 2016 election, when there was every chance that
there would be another Democratic administration in January
2017.
The Scientific Integrity Act is straightforward. It
outlines prohibited conduct for employees of federal agencies
that conduct scientific research. This includes suppressing
scientific findings or coercing others to suppress scientific
findings. It defines the rights and responsibilities of federal
scientists in making public statements about their work to the
media, the scientific community, and the public. It directs
federal agencies to develop, adopt, and enforce scientific
integrity policies that meet a number of specified criteria.
And it directs agencies to appoint a dedicated career
scientific integrity officer. H.R. 1709 does not make
instructions for any specific agency or call out any particular
misdeed; it is an Administration-neutral and Agency-neutral set
of principles.
So why do this? First, it's just good government. It
ensures transparency and accountability in government, which is
part of our Constitutional responsibility as the U.S. Congress;
and ensures we are relying on facts and increasing evidence
around tested hypotheses regarding our most complex and nuanced
policy changes.
Second, it protects Federal scientists, but does not
dictate science as law. There have been many publicized and an
unknown number of unpublicized cases in which the basic
principles of scientific integrity have been violated, and both
Federal employees and the taxpaying public suffer the
consequences.
The people we represent here today in Congress rely on
government agencies who are there to serve the public to be
able to do their job to keep people safe and healthy by using
the best available data, most accurate data to inform their
policies - regardless of politics.
Today, in our government, federal agencies must run as
effective organizations positioned for the most successful
outcomes possible, whereas our taxpayers receive that precious
but essential return on investment. Our biology, physics, and
chemistry are governed by a set of natural laws. Our civil
society is governed by a set of codified and recognized - self-
evident - laws scribed by the legends of our democracy. Today
we strive for neutral territory to legislate within this very
chamber without the weight of dogma and ideology exclusively
dictating our work. We strive to embrace a peer review of
discovery and determination for new laws to exercise and lay
out our future.
As Baruch Spinoza, one of the early philosophers of the
Enlightenment, said, ``Those who are governed by reason desire
nothing for themselves which they do not also desire for the
rest of humankind.''
We have an excellent panel today with diverse expertise and
perspectives on this issue. I look forward to a spirited
discussion and to hearing your thoughts on the Scientific
Integrity Act.
Chairwoman Stevens. Before I recognize my friend, Dr. Jim
Baird, for his opening statement, I would like to present for
the record a statement from the UAW, the United Auto Workers
Union, in support of the Scientific Integrity Act.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Baird for his opening
statement.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Chairwoman
Sherrill, for holding today's hearing.
In science, carrying out our work with integrity is the
bedrock principle. And to quote the National Academies' report
on the responsible conduct of research, ``The public will
support science only if it can trust the scientists and the
institutions that conduct the research.''
We must have rigorous policies on scientific integrity,
research misconduct, conflict of interest, and data
transparency. This instills public trust and confidence in
taxpayer-funded research. Furthermore, all of us in this room
agree the fundamental right of scientists to be able to
conduct, publish, and speak freely on the findings of their
research. It goes to the heart of who we are as Americans and
the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
Federal agencies have policies and procedures in place to
protect these rights. I look forward to hearing from the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) about the results of
their study on Federal science integrity policies and their
recommendations for improvements.
But I think some conflate the findings of scientific
research with public policy decisions. I've done research, and,
as a scientist, I was trained to look for the raw data, analyze
it, and leave out my biases. In fact, one of the things you do
in research is you use random numbers to assign treatments to
various parts of that research, and so that's a way of removing
your biases.
Science is science, but politics, as all of us on this side
of the aisle know, is more complicated. Two people may look at
the same scientific data and relevant information and come up
with two different policy conclusions. There's nothing
inherently dishonest about that. In politics we have
disagreements. We discuss, we debate, we negotiate, we vote,
and in the end the voters decide what policies they want to
support at the ballot box.
I hope today's hearing will be a constructive discussion.
It would be a disservice to the scientists who work in our
Federal agencies to play politics with the issue of scientific
integrity. You may disagree with the politics of the current
Administration, but let's stick to the facts of what is
happening with science in our Federal agencies, not rumor, not
exaggeration.
I'm very concerned about the process that led us to this
hearing, which Mr. Norman will address further in his opening
statement. The Research and Technology Subcommittee has had a
good track record of bipartisan work, promoting American
leadership in science and innovation. I hope and believe that
will continue.
Thank you for our witnesses for being here today, and I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Chairwoman Sherrill for
holding today's hearing.
In science, carrying out our work with integrity is a
bedrock principle.
To quote a National Academies report on the responsible
conduct of research, ``The public will support science only if
it can trust the scientists and institutions that conduct
research.''
We must have rigorous policies on scientific integrity,
research misconduct, conflict of interest, and data
transparency. This instills public trust and confidence in
taxpayer-funded research.
Furthermore, all of us in this room agree in the
fundamental right of scientists to be able to conduct, publish
and speak freely on the findings of their research. It goes to
the heart of who we are as Americans and the rights enshrined
in the Bill of Rights.
Federal agencies have policies and procedures in place to
protect these rights. I look forward to hearing from the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) about the results of
their study on federal science integrity policies, and their
recommendations for improvements.
But I think some conflate the findings of scientific
research with public policy decisions.
I've done research. As a scientist, I was trained to look
at the raw data, analyze it, and leave out my biases.
Science is science. But politics, as all of us on this side
of the dais know, is more complicated. Two people may look at
the same scientific data and relevant information and come to
two totally different policy conclusions.
There is nothing inherently dishonest about that. In
politics we have disagreements. We discuss, we debate, we
negotiate, we vote, and in the end, the voters decide whose
policies they want to support at the ballot box.
I hope today's hearing will be a constructive discussion.
It would be a disservice to the scientists who work in our
federal agencies to play politics with the issue of scientific
integrity.
You may disagree with the politics of the current
Administration, but let's stick with the facts of what is
happening with science at our federal agencies, not rumor and
exaggeration.
I am very concerned about the process that led up to this
hearing, which Mr. Norman will address further in his opening
statement.
The Research & Technology Subcommittee has had a good track
record of bipartisan work promoting American leadership in
science and innovation. I hope and believe that will continue.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I yield
back.
Chairwoman Stevens. The Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman
of the House Science Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight, Ms. Sherrill, for an opening statement.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Stevens
and Ranking Member Norman and Ranking Member Baird.
When we talk about scientific integrity, it's all about
fostering a culture of respect for science throughout all
levels of government. Federal agencies need to listen to
scientists and allow them to do their work free of political
considerations. Agencies also need to appreciate the value of
science in policymaking, and the leadership of an agency should
never be hostile to its scientists or treat scientific findings
as a threat.
I will give an example that's important to this Committee.
In March, I chaired a hearing about the IRIS (Integrated Risk
Information System) program at the Environmental Protection
Agency. We heard how EPA took steps last December to eliminate
10 chemical assessments from the IRIS workflow, thus preventing
the public from seeing the latest science on how these
chemicals affect human health. We know that EPA's decision
isn't about a lack of resources. In fact, the IRIS assessment
of formaldehyde is already done.
So this is exactly why Federal agencies need robust
scientific integrity policies, and that's why I'm proud to be a
cosponsor of H.R. 1709, and I thank Congressman Tonko for his
leadership on this. And I yield the balance of my time to him
to introduce the bill.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Sherrill follows:]
Thank you Chairwoman Stevens. It's a great pleasure to be
here today at this joint subcommittee hearing. I'm pleased as
always to see my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we
consider the very important issue of scientific integrity in
government.
When we talk about scientific integrity, we are talking to
a large extent about rules and procedures. Federal agencies
must have explicit rules in place to affirm that scientific
research will be free of political interference and that
academic honesty will not be punished by harassment or
retaliation. They also need formal procedures in place for the
fair, timely and transparent resolution of allegations when
they are made. One of our tasks here today is to assess whether
the scientific integrity policies currently used by executive
branch agencies do enough to protect science and the public
servants who conduct it.
Rules and procedures, however, are only one part of the
answer. It is equally important to foster a culture of respect
for science throughout the government. Federal agencies need to
listen to scientists and allow them to do their work unhindered
by political considerations. They also need to appreciate the
value of science in policymaking and actively incorporate
scientific findings into the deliberative process. The
leadership of an agency should never be hostile to its
scientists or treat scientific findings as a threat. Any leader
who would do so is merely revealing that their beliefs are
determined by ideology rather than the facts. That kind of
thinking is pernicious and does not serve the public.
Let me talk about an example that's important to this
Committee. In March, we held a hearing about the IRIS program
at the Environmental Protection Agency. We heard how EPA took
steps last December to eliminate important chemical assessments
from the program's workflow - thus preventing the public from
seeing the latest science on how exposures to these chemicals
affect human health. We know that EPA's decision to sideline
these studies is not about a lack of resources. In fact, we
know that EPA's assessment of formaldehyde through the IRIS
program is already done. The former EPA Administrator, Scott
Pruitt, told a Senate Committee himself that the formaldehyde
assessment was ready for ``imminent'' release way back in
January 2018. This assessment is the culmination of countless
hours of work from dedicated EPA scientists over more than a
decade. Its findings would mean a lot for understanding the
respiratory health and cancer risks of formaldehyde and help
inform decision-making that will keep workers and children
safe. But keeping the study out of the public eye apparently
means a lot to special interests.
If this episode at IRIS isn't political interference in
science, I don't know what is. This kind of activity is exactly
why robust scientific integrity policies are needed.
And we should never lose sight of why scientific integrity
is so important. America faces immense challenges today:
Accelerating climate change, attacks on women's health,
dangerous chemicals in our water and our workplaces, aging
transportation networks, and so much more. We cannot adequately
understand these threats - let alone address them - with
anything less than the best possible science. We also need a
government that communicates scientific information clearly and
effectively to the American people. This nation has the best
scientists in the world, and the ones that work with the
federal government are working to help us overcome the greatest
challenges of our time. When we allow federal scientists to do
their jobs without interference, their efforts make the country
stronger, safer and more prosperous.
I'm proud to be a cosponsor of the Scientific Integrity
Act. This bill will codify scientific integrity policies at
federal agencies and strengthen them in crucial ways. It will
guarantee that federal scientists can conduct research freely,
present findings honestly, communicate information openly, and
engage with the scientific community. It will also ensure that
when scientific integrity violations do occur, federal
scientists know their rights and can report the violations to
designated officials who are empowered to help. If H.R. 1709
becomes law, scientific integrity in the federal government
will stand on a much firmer foundation. I want to thank
Representative Tonko, Chairwoman Johnson and Chairwoman Stevens
for their leadership on this issue.
We have a distinguished panel for the hearing today, and I
thank the witnesses sitting before us. The subject of this
hearing impacts us all.
Thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady from New
Jersey for yielding. And I thank Chairs Johnson and Stevens for
today's hearing and for joining me as an original cosponsor
introducing the Scientific Integrity Act. Thanks to Chairwoman
Sherrill for your strong support of the bill and to the nearly
200 Members who have supported this commonsense, good
government legislation.
I also want to thank my colleague and friend Dr. Baird for
coming today with an open mind on the nonpartisan need for
strong, consistent scientific integrity policies. Mr. Norman, I
look forward to speaking with you more about this critical
issue as well.
Every time government scientific reports are delayed,
distorted, or hidden, the American people pay the price in the
form of lost rights and freedoms, lost wages to medical bills,
burned or flooded homes, lost years from our lives, and the
irreplaceable loss of loved ones. As an engineer with a deep
respect for science, Federal scientific integrity standards
have been a concern of mine for many years.
Allowing political power or special interests to manipulate
or suppress Federal science hurts and hurts all of us. It leads
to dirtier air, unsafe water, toxic products on our shelves and
chemicals in our homes and environment. And it has driven
Federal inaction in response to the growing climate crisis.
Scientific integrity is a longstanding concern that
transcends any one party or political administration. In fact,
I began working on the Scientific Integrity Act in the summer
of 2016 when we had a Democratic Administration. The abuses
directed by this President and his top officials have brought a
new urgency to the issue, but the fact remains, whether a
Democrat or a Republican sits in the Speaker's Chair or the
Oval Office, we need strong scientific integrity policies.
This bill, H.R. 1709, would do just that, insulating public
scientific research and reports from the distorting influence
of political and special interests by ensuring strong
scientific integrity standards at America's science agencies.
More than 20 Federal agencies have some form of a
scientific integrity policy, but those policies are uneven in
their enforcement and scope. As a result, vital information and
scientific analysis falls between the cracks, especially now in
an Administration that prizes appearances often at the expense
of the facts.
For that and other reasons, more than 60 organizations have
sent a letter in support of Congress moving the Scientific
Integrity Act forward. This letter, which includes signatures
of scientists and government accountability groups such as
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,
environmental groups such as Defenders of Wildlife, women's
health organizations such as the National Partnership for Women
and Families, and unions such as SEIU (Service Employees
International Union).
Madam Chair, I ask that this letter be entered for the
record.
Science doesn't serve political power, it just tries to
tell us the truth. And that is always worth protecting. I hope
that, as a Committee, we can all work together to strengthen
scientific integrity policies and ensure that we are upholding
high scientific standards across all agencies, no matter who
holds the reins of political power.
Madam Chair I also request to enter a letter for the record
from the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or
PEER, in support of the Scientific Integrity Act. PEER is a
nonprofit group that works nationwide with government
scientists, land managers, law enforcement agents, field
specialists, and other leading environmental professionals.
With that, I thank the Committee, Subcommittees for
providing for this opportunity to discuss what I think is very
key, critical legislation. I hope that we can move forward and
show great respect and dignity toward our scientists who work
within the Federal agencies conducting research paid for by
Federal tax dollars.
With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Thank you Chairs Johnson and Stevens for today's hearing
and for joining me as two of the four original cosponsors
introducing the Scientific Integrity Act! Thanks to Chairwoman
Sherrill for your strong support of the Scientific Integrity
Act and to the 200 members who have supported this commonsense,
good government legislation.
I also want to thank my colleague and friend Dr. Baird for
coming today with an open mind on the nonpartisan need for
strong, consistent scientific integrity policies. Mr. Norman, I
look forward to speaking with you more about this critical
issue as well.
Every time government scientific reports are delayed,
distorted or hidden, the American people pay the price in the
form of lost rights and freedoms, lost wages to medical bills,
burned or flooded homes, lost years from our lives and the
irreplaceable loss of loves ones. As an engineer with a deep
respect for science, federal scientific integrity standards
have been a concern of mine for many years. Allowing political
power or special interests to manipulate or suppress federal
science hurts all of us. It leads to dirtier air, unsafe water,
toxic products on our shelves and chemicals in our homes and
environment. And it has driven federal inaction in response to
the growing climate crisis.
Scientific integrity is a longstanding concern that
transcends any one party or political administration, but the
abuses directed by this President and his top officials have
brought a new urgency to the issue. Still, it must be said
that, whether a Democrat or a Republican sits in the Speaker's
chair or the Oval Office, we need strong scientific integrity
policies.
I began working on the Scientific Integrity Act in the
summer of 2016 when we had a Democratic administration. And at
that time, I believed that the next Administration would likely
be a Democratic Administration as well. More than 20 federal
agencies have introduced some form of a scientific integrity
policy to create a firewall between science and the political
and special interests that seek to influence, suppress or
distort it. But those policies are uneven in their enforcement
and scope. As a result, vital information and scientific
analysis falls between the cracks-especially now in an
administration that prizes appearances often at the expense of
the facts.
The Scientific Integrity Act, H.R. 1709, would protect
public scientific research and reports from the distorting
influence of political and special interests by ensuring strong
scientific integrity standards at America's science agencies.
The bill is supported by nearly 200 members. More than 60
organizations sent a letter in support of Congress moving the
Scientific Integrity Act forward. The list of organizations not
only includes scientists but also government accountability
groups such as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington, environmental groups such as Defenders of Wildlife,
women's health organizations such as the National Partnership
for Women & Families, and unions such as SEIU. Madame Chair, I
ask that this letter be entered for the record.
Science doesn't serve political power, it just tries to
tell us the truth. And that is always worth protecting. I hope
that as a committee we can all work together to strengthen
scientific integrity policies and ensure that we are upholding
high scientific standards across all agencies, no matter who
holds the reins of political power.
Madame Chair I also request to enter for the record a
letter from the Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility (PEER) in support of the Scientific Integrity
Act. PEER is a nonprofit group that works nationwide with
government scientists, land managers, law enforcement agents,
field specialists and other leading environmental
professionals.
Chairwoman Stevens. Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Mr. Norman, for
an opening statement.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Chairwoman
Sherrill, for convening this meeting. And I want to thank each
of our witnesses today. I appreciate the time that you've put
in to come to Congress.
We're here today to discuss the importance of scientific
integrity policies within Federal agencies. The value of
integrity and transparency in Federal science enterprise cannot
be understated. Scientific findings are often relied upon by
policymakers to make important decisions that affect the lives
of millions of Americans. But to maintain the public trust,
there must be a high degree of integrity and transparency in
the scientific process.
Under the direction of Congress and the White House Office
of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, in 2010 Federal science
agencies were directed to develop policies that ensure a
culture of scientific integrity, strengthen the credibility of
government research, facilitate the flow of scientific and
technological information, and to establish principles for
conveying scientific and technological information to the
public.
According to the GAO, 24 Federal departments and agencies
have developed scientific integrity policies in response to the
2010 OSTP guidance. In April 2019, the GAO published a report
evaluating these policies and their implementation across nine
Federal agencies that conduct scientific research. I look
forward to hearing more today about this report and GAO's
report on this important topic. Thank you, Mr. Neumann, for
being here.
During today's discussion, however, we cannot lose sight of
the distinction between science and policy. Science is used to
answer questions relevant to policy, but policy is a decision
or a commitment to a specified course of action which is
ultimately a political question. We must ensure integrity in
both scientific and political processes. I believe this means
we should refrain from weaponizing science to score political
points.
Unfortunately, it seems that my Democratic colleagues are
intent on politicizing scientific integrity, and the way this
hearing was orchestrated is a perfect example of that. I'm
disappointed in the way this entire process has been managed
quite frankly. Committee staff were first notified about this
hearing when they were copied on a witness invitation. There
was no phone call, there was no email, there was zero
conversation. There was no deliberation, at least no bipartisan
deliberation.
This invitation was to an official from the EPA, an agency
that received not one single recommendation for action in GAO's
report. In fact, of the 10 recommendations made by GAO for or
directed to the Department of Energy, two were directed to NIST
(National Institute of Standards and Technology), NSA (National
Security Agency), and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) received one recommendation each. But none of
these agencies were invited to testify about their scientific
integrity policies.
Instead, the majority sought to invite the EPA, presumably
to haul them in for a partisan pummeling. The EPA even agreed
to provide a senior official to testify, a respected scientist
who oversees scientific integrity policies. But the majority
rejected that witness. And it doesn't stop there. Legislation
we are here to discuss has 188 cosponsors, all of which are
Democrats. Perhaps that's because my colleagues across the
aisle had zero interest in gaining bipartisan support.
Fortunately, there's ample room for improving communications
and deliberation moving forward.
Since the majority failed to invite a single Ph.D.
scientist, we invited a scientific expert to provide
constructive feedback on the legislation. I look forward to
hearing Dr. Pielke, your thoughtful recommendations.
I'm hopeful that the tone of the remainder of today's
hearing will be civil and that we can have a constructive
dialog on how we can reaffirm our commitment to integrity and
transparency within the Federal science enterprise.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Norman follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Chairwoman Sherrill, for
convening today's hearing.
We are here to discuss the importance of scientific
integrity policies within federal agencies. The value of
integrity and transparency in federal science enterprise cannot
be understated.
Scientific findings are often relied upon by policymakers
to make important decisions that affect the lives of millions
of Americans.
But to maintain the public's trust, there must be a high
degree of integrity and transparency in the scientific process.
Under the direction of Congress and the White House Office
of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in 2010, Federal
science agencies were directed to develop policies that ensure
a culture of scientific integrity; strengthen the credibility
of government research; facilitate the flow of scientific and
technological information; and to establish principles for
conveying scientific and technological information to the
public.
According to GAO, 24 federal departments and agencies have
developed scientific integrity policies in response to the 2010
OSTP guidance.
In April 2019, GAO published a report evaluating these
policies and their implementation across nine federal agencies
that conduct scientific research.
I look forward to hearing more today about this report and
GAO's work on this important topic. Thank you, Mr. Neumann, for
being here.
During today's discussion, however, we cannot lose sight of
the distinction between science and policy. Science is used to
answer questions relevant to policy. But policy is a decision
or a commitment to a specified course of action, which is
ultimately a political question.
We must ensure integrity in both scientific and political
processes. I believe this means we should refrain from
weaponizing science to score political points.
Unfortunately, it seems that my Democratic colleagues are
intent on politicizing scientific integrity, and the way this
hearing was orchestrated is a perfect example.
I am disappointed in the way this entire process has been
managed. Committee staff were first notified about this hearing
when they were copied on a witness invitation.
There was no phone call. There was no email. There was no
conversation. There was no deliberation, at least no
``bipartisan'' deliberation.
This invitation was to an official from the EPA, an agency
that received not one single recommendation for action in GAO's
report. In fact, of the 10 recommendations made by GAO, four
were directed to the Department of Energy, two were directed to
NIST, and NASA and NOAA received one recommendation each.
But none of these agencies were invited to testify about
their scientific integrity policies. Instead, the Majority
sought to invite the EPA, presumably to haul them in for a
partisan pummeling.
The EPA even agreed to provide a senior official to
testify, a respected scientist who oversees scientific
integrity policies. But the Majority rejected that witness.
And it doesn't stop there. The legislation we are here to
discuss has 188 cosponsors, all of which are Democrats. Perhaps
that's because my colleagues across the aisle had no interest
in gaining bipartisan support.
Fortunately, there is ample room for improving
communication and deliberation moving forward.
Since the Majority failed to invite a single PhD scientist,
we invited a scientific expert to provide constructive feedback
on the legislation. I look forward to hearing Dr. Pielke's
thoughtful recommendations.
I am hopeful that the tone of the remainder of today's
hearing will be civil, and that we can have a constructive
dialogue on how we can reaffirm our commitment to integrity and
transparency within the federal science enterprise.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Norman. Madam Chair, at this time I would ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record letters exchanged between the
Science Committee and the Environmental Protection Agency
regarding today's hearing.
Chairwoman Stevens. So ordered.
Mr. Norman. I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. If there are Members who wish to submit
additional opening statements, your statements will be added to
the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good morning to our witnesses and welcome to the hearing.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Scientific
Integrity Act, and I commend Congressman Tonko for his hard
work in preparing the bill.
As I see it, scientific integrity consists of two major
elements. The first is respect for the truth. Science does not
have a political agenda. When science is done well, when
trained professionals can follow the data and subject their
findings to rigorous peer review, the information speaks for
itself. The meaning of science-based decision-making is being
informed by the best possible science and deciding what to do.
The second is respect for scientists themselves. As I see
it, a big part of scientific integrity is allowing the
scientists who serve this country to conduct their work
unimpeded by undue outside influence. It's about allowing them
to speak freely in their capacity as experts with the American
public and the media. It's about allowing them to serve on
advisory boards, join scientific societies, and engage with the
scientific community. Unfortunately, we know that federal
agencies do not always make this possible for their scientists.
Sometimes Congress throws up roadblocks for federal scientists,
too, and we need to do better.
On a related note, I want to share my disappointment about
who is missing from our panel of witnesses today. The Committee
invited Dr. Francesca Grifo, the Scientific Integrity Official
for EPA, to testify. Of all the Scientific Integrity Officials
across the two dozen or so agencies that conduct or oversee
science, Dr. Grifo is arguably the most experienced, and EPA's
Scientific Integrity policy is among the most robust. We were
eager to hear from her about EPA's process for implementing
their policy and handling staff issues, as well as best
practices to consider.
But EPA refused to make Dr. Grifo available and offered
another official, the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Science, in her place. While we appreciate this person's
credentials and experience, she has never served as a
scientific integrity official for a federal agency. She did not
help draft the EPA Science Integrity Policy, and she has never
personally adjudicated a formal complaint from a federal
scientist. We wanted to hear from Dr. Grifo because she hears
directly from EPA employees who have concerns, questions and
disputes. A major purpose of this hearing is to understand the
day-to-day experiences of a scientific integrity official. EPA
did not explain to this Committee why it would not make Dr.
Grifo available, but only stated in vague terms that they
believed their alternate official would be ``adequate'' for
today's meeting. As the Chairwoman of this Committee, I believe
EPA's response to our invitation was not adequate, and I hope
to hear from Dr. Grifo at a future date.
Nevertheless, I know the panelists who are before us today
are capable of assisting the Committee with their insights and
experiences and I look forward to their testimony.
I yield back to Chairwoman Stevens.
Chairwoman Stevens. You know who didn't get a phone call?
The people of Flint when their water was poisoned. You know who
didn't get a phone call? The people of New Orleans when their
city was flooding.
So I'm really proud of our witnesses who made the time to
come here today. I'm proud of our Committee's leadership and
our outreach to many agencies. And in fact, we had a great
outreach to the Environmental Protection Agency which we asked
Ms. Francesca Grifo to serve as a witness here today. Ms. Grifo
is a widely respected government employee in the scientific
community as a longtime advocate for scientific integrity. And
in fact she serves as the Environmental Protection Agency's
Scientific Integrity Officer. She's one of our proud civil
servants. And so that means she's not a political appointee or
appointed by the Administration. She carries throughout each
Administration, carrying this charge of scientific integrity
forward. And her perspective would have been invaluable here
today.
Unfortunately, the EPA refused to allow Ms. Grifo to
testify. Instead, the agency would only allow Dr.--or, excuse
me, Ms. Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta to join us. And Ms. Zavaleta's
role at the EPA is as a science advisor. So while we appreciate
her talent, we know that her comments on scientific integrity
would have fallen short, given that that is not her
jurisdiction and her role.
Mr. Tonko. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Stevens. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. If I might add to your comment, I recently
attended the public statement opportunity at the agency for
this given reason, that they are usually highlighted as one of
the best agencies if not the best with their scientific
integrity panel. And so I wanted to make certain that we
encouraged other agencies to follow that glowing example. So
Ms. Grifo is very much respected, and she's held as an example
of--and her team--as an example of what we would like to
accomplish with this legislation.
And also, I have reached out across the aisle many times
over still hoping to get Republican support. We've asked many
Members. So, Dr. Baird, I just wanted to encourage you again to
take a good look at the legislation. And I appreciated the
conversation we had and the fact that you, by your very resume,
show great respect for science.
So with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you.
At this time I'd like to introduce our witnesses. Our first
witness is Mr. John Neumann. Mr. Neumann is Managing Director
in the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) new Science,
Technology Assessment, and Analytics team. Since 2013, he has
led audits in the management and oversight of Federal research
and development programs, protection of intellectual property,
and Federal efforts to support innovation. Mr. Neumann received
his B.A. in political science from the State University of New
York at Stony Brook and holds an MBA from American University,
as well as a J.D. from Georgetown University.
Our next witness is Mr. Michael Halpern. Mr. Halpern is
Deputy Director of the Center for Democracy and Science at the
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). In this role, he works to
ensure government decisions are fully informed by scientific
information and that the public understands the scientific
basis for those decisions. He has co-authored several reports
and articles that detail solutions that would improve
scientific integrity and has advised Federal agencies and
departments on policies to promote scientific independence in
the context of policymaking. He holds a B.A. in sociology and
communication studies from Macalester College.
After Mr. Halpern is Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. Dr. Pielke is
the Director of the Sports Governance Center and a Professor of
Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder. We
know you're all very active in Colorado, so, you know, a very
healthy community out there. He has also served several terms
as the Founding Director of Colorado's Center for Science and
Technology Policy research. Dr. Pielke's research focuses on
science, innovation, and politics in a number of areas. He
holds degrees in mathematics, public policy, and political
silence all from the University of Colorado.
Our final witness is Mr. Joel Clement. Mr. Clement is
currently a Senior Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School's
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. In this
role, he works with a number of partners to improve the
knowledge and tools necessary to reduce risk and improve
resilience in the Arctic region. Prior to joining the Harvard
Belfer Center, Mr. Clement was an executive for 7 years at the
U.S. Department of the Interior. Before serving in the Federal
Government, Mr. Clement was a Conservation Science Program
Officer for a private foundation where he focused on climate
change, adaptation strategies, and landscape-scale conservation
efforts. He has published peer-reviewed articles on forest
ecology and science policy linkages, as well as multiple
Federal Government reports.
As our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be
included in the record for the hearing. When you have completed
your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions. Each
Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel.
We will start with you, Mr. Neumann. You have 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN NEUMANN,
MANAGING DIRECTOR, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT,
AND ANALYTICS, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Neumann. Chairwoman Stevens, Chairwoman Sherrill,
Ranking Member Baird, Ranking Member Norman, and Members of the
Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to be here today
to discuss our report on Federal agencies' implementation of
scientific integrity policies.
As you know, allegations about agency officials
inappropriately influencing science have been reported in the
Federal Government. To address this issue, Congress passed the
America COMPETES Act (Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully
Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science),
which required the Office of Science and Technology Policy to
develop a set of scientific integrity principles, which was
issued to agencies in 2010. These principles are intended to
ensure the open communication of data and results from research
conducted by Federal scientists and prevent the suppression or
distortion of such research findings.
My statement today summarizes the findings and
recommendations from our April 2019 report on Federal
scientific integrity policies. Specifically, I will highlight
the key findings from two objectives of our report: The extent
to which Federal agencies have taken actions to achieve the
objectives of their scientific integrity policies, and the
extent to which Federal agencies have procedures for
identifying and addressing alleged violations of those
policies.
Our review focused on nine Federal agencies that conduct
scientific research, employ Federal scientists, and were among
the agencies with the greatest levels of funding for intramural
research, that is research conducted by Federal agencies in
their own facilities. These included the Agricultural Research
Service at USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), EPA, FAA
(Federal Aviation Administration), the Office of Fossil Energy
at the Department of Energy, NIH (National Institutes of
Health), NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration),
NIST, NOAA, and the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) at the
Department of Interior (DOI).
Our first finding was that the nine selected agencies had
taken some actions to achieve the objectives of their
scientific integrity policies, but several agencies had not
taken actions in three areas we highlighted: Communicating
scientific integrity policies to staff, providing oversight,
and monitoring and evaluating performance of their policies.
Specifically, while most agencies had taken actions to
educate or train their staff on their scientific integrity
policies, two agencies, the Department of Energy and NIST, had
not. Also, the Department of Energy had not designated a
scientific integrity official to oversee its policies. In
addition, five agencies, the Department of Energy, FAA, NIST,
NOAA, and USGS, had not taken actions to evaluate their
policies to ensure that they were achieving their objectives.
Our second finding was that two agencies, Department of
Energy and NASA, did not have documented procedures for
addressing alleged violations of their scientific integrity
policies. Without such a process, these agencies have no
assurance that staff know how to report allegations and that
investigations will be conducted consistently.
Based on these findings, we made a total of 10
recommendations to six of the agencies in our review. These
agencies were receptive to our recommendations, and we will
continue to track the efforts to implement them.
In closing, it's important to note that the integrity of
federally funded science depends in part on agencies having
sound scientific integrity policies, ensuring that the
objectives of their policies are achieved and addressing
alleged violations.
This concludes my prepared statement. I'd be happy to
respond to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neumann follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL HALPERN,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND DEMOCRACY,
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
Mr. Halpern. Good morning, and thank you, Chairwoman
Stevens, Chairwoman Sherrill, Ranking Member Baird, and Ranking
Member Norman, for holding this hearing today.
I'm Michael Halpern. I'm the Deputy Director of the Center
for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
I have spent the last 15 years working at the intersection of
science and policy and standing up for scientists and their
work. And I'm really, really thrilled to be here today to talk
about political interference in the work of Federal Government
scientists and steps to prevent that type of misconduct. I hope
that today will serve as an example to all that there can be a
bipartisan commitment to promoting responsible conduct in
Federal scientific agencies regarding the development and
communication of scientific information.
Federal Government experts provide data and analysis that
helps us stop the Zika virus. They help neighborhoods deal with
public health risks posed by nearby chemical plants. They help
journalists and policymakers understand bioterrorism threats.
Now, there is not Democratic science, there is not Republican
science. There's just science. Decision-makers and the public
want to hear directly from the experts, and they deserve that
access. But too often policymakers want to keep scientists on a
leash or, worse, change scientific practices or outcomes to
support predetermined policy positions.
Political appointees suppress scientific reports on
chemical toxicity, order staff to soften conclusions on worker
safety problems, unethically change testing protocols on lead
exposure and other chemical exposure, and misrepresent
scientists' work on reproductive health. In that kind of closed
culture, scientists keep their heads down, and we are robbed of
their expertise. This keeps valuable information from the
public and makes it easier for politicians to avoid
accountability for poor public health and environmental
protection decisions.
The consequences are real. During the George W. Bush
Administration, government experts were ordered to change their
testing procedures to suggest that children's lunchboxes with
lead in them were safe. The Obama EPA watered down and changed
a scientific assessment about the impacts of fracking on
drinking water in a way that misled the public. And in the
Trump Administration, assessments of PFAS chemicals were held
up, scientists have been muzzled on climate change, and experts
report high levels of censorship and self-censorship across
issues and surveys.
For the last 20 years, journalism associations complained
consistently about access to Federal Government experts and
asked for improvements. They were stonewalled then, and it's
only getting worse. Recently, the U.S. Geological Survey began
requiring scientists to ask for permission before speaking with
a reporter. Now, USGS is not a regulatory agency. It doesn't do
policy. Yet the desire to control the message on science is
still present.
Now, most Federal agencies, as we know, have developed
scientific integrity policies over the last decade, but
agencies vary widely in their ability and willingness to
enforce and implement these policies. At a majority of agencies
there's little training and few enforcement mechanisms. Without
being in statute, the scientific integrity policies can improve
agencies around the edges but lack authority and
enforceability. Policies can be curtailed or eliminated at any
moment.
Now, ultimately we cannot depend on agencies to police
themselves without additional direction and support. It's time
to codify these scientific integrity standards. The Scientific
Integrity Act creates transparency and accountability through
clarity. The legislation would give scientists who work for the
government and work for government agencies the right to share
their research with the public, ensure that government
communication of science is accurate, and protect science and
policy decisions from political interference, not dictating the
policy decisions but protecting the science within them.
The bill empowers Federal employees also to share their
expertise and opinions as informed experts in a personal
capacity outside of their government jobs. And the bill
prohibits any employee from censoring or manipulating
scientific findings.
It's certainly time for this kind of legislation to be
considered. It's certainly important for us to determine that
we can separate the science from the policy and that we need to
make fully informed decisions based on that science. But the
American people lose when we end up with manipulated or
suppressed or distorted information. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Halpern follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. Dr. Pielke.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ROGER PIELKE, JR.,
DIRECTOR, SPORTS GOVERNANCE CENTER, AND PROFESSOR,
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
Dr. Pielke. Thank you. And thanks to the two Subcommittees
for the opportunity today.
A long time ago, I worked for this Committee, for the
Science Committee under George Brown in the red sweater, which
led me to deeply appreciate the work that everyone does here,
Members and staff.
Scientific integrity policies are essentially the ground
rules for evidence in the political process that the government
agrees to follow. This includes elected and appointed officials
and civil servants. Scientific integrity legislation is
important and necessary. Careful attention is needed to ensure
that such legislation integrates well with existing related
policies.
Under the George H.W. Bush Administration, controversies
involving Federal science and scientists prompted the inclusion
of a very short section in the 2007 America COMPETES Act. Under
the Obama Administration, OSTP further developed guidelines for
the implementation of scientific integrity policies.
These worthwhile efforts to develop and implement such
policies for Federal agencies have not been continued under
OSTP under the Trump Administration. Such policies are
important because science and matters of scientific integrity
have become increasingly popular arenas for partisan battles.
If there is one topic where bipartisanship should thrive, it is
scientific integrity.
However, these policies remain a work in progress. A
December 2016 review of scientific integrity policies in 24
Federal agencies conducted for OSTP found that the concept of
scientific integrity was undefined by OSTP and in most agencies
scientific integrity policies.
As we've heard, a GAO review recently of nine Federal
agencies found considerable variability in the implementation
of scientific integrity policies. Thus, congressional
legislation is presently needed to complete the task of
developing scientific integrity policies for Federal agencies
to place them explicitly under congressional oversight and to
standardized definitions, policies, and procedures across
Federal agencies, while recognizing also the need for
flexibility in certain agency contexts.
H.R. 1709 offers a good start, but it's not quite there
yet. My written statement contains detailed comments on the
bill.
Now, the focus of scientific integrity policies has
typically been on individual researchers and studies. But
science best guides and informs policy when it's been assessed
by expert advisory bodies that characterize the current state
of knowledge on a particular topic or to present potential
policy options, including perspectives on uncertainties,
disagreements, and areas of ignorance.
The volume of scientific production requires assessments to
inform policy. Consider that, according to the National Science
Foundation, the U.S. Federal Government scientists published
almost 20,000 science and engineering articles in 2016, the
most recent year data is available. And the vast majority of
academic research is supported by Federal Government agencies.
In 2016, this totaled more than 307,000 additional publications
or about 840 per day. To communicate all Federal and federally
supported research by agency press releases will require a
press release every 90 seconds, 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year. Federal agencies and universities thus face constant
choices about which scientific articles to highlight for the
media and the public. Of course, such choices are influenced by
politics, including which studies support the agency's or
Administration's policy goals, and so on.
The political nature of the communication of research is
further enhanced by today's partisan media landscape and
political advocates looking to advance their causes by
promoting favorable research results and often attacking those
results perceived to be unfavorable. Scientific integrity
process--policies can help to ensure that the research
underlying a communication process retains its integrity, but
they cannot remove the role of political considerations from
the overall process of communication.
Communicating science to the public, as important as it is,
can never substitute for rigorous assessments. Thus, I strongly
encourage Members of this Committee to consider directing
legislative attention in support of enhancing scientific
integrity in assessment and advisory bodies, including but not
limited to those that fall under FACA (Federal Advisory
Committee Act).
Finally, good science and policy advice from experts also
results from the upholding of scientific integrity by elected
and appointed officials. Often, and rightly so, our attention
is focused on the advice given by experts. However, in policy
settings, what is just as important is relationship of
policymakers to those experts. Elected officials or political
appointees should not use their positions to go after
individual scientists or studies. Such actions subtract from
scientific integrity.
The bottom line is that advisors advise, decisionmakers
decide. Scientific integrity legislation can help create
conditions where advisors can best fulfill their part of this
important and essential relationship. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pielke follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. Mr. Clement.
TESTIMONY OF JOEL CLEMENT,
ARCTIC INITIATIVE SENIOR FELLOW, BELFER CENTER
FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS,
HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL
Mr. Clement. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member
Baird, Chairwoman Sherrill, Ranking Member Norman, and Full
Committee Chairman Johnson, for providing me the opportunity to
testify in support of scientific integrity here today.
And I'm here presumably because of my tenure and role as a
senior executive at the Interior Department for 7 years. As
Director of the Office of Policy Analysis, it was my job to
understand the most recent scientific and analytical
information regarding matters that affected the mission of the
agency and to communicate that information to agency
leadership. In that role, I never imagined the possibility that
agency leadership would not want to have the best information,
that they would actively suppress scientific evidence. And
unfortunately, that's exactly what we've seen happen during the
Trump Administration.
Right now, there are dozens of Alaska Native villages
imperiled by the impacts of human-caused climate change,
frontline American communities addressing dramatic impacts as
we speak. These are not model projections. These are impacts
happening before our eyes. Human-caused global warming is
accelerating permafrost thaw and the loss of sea ice with dire
implications for the rest of the planet. Most notably, parents
and children and uncles are falling through unreliable ice and
perishing. Villages are struggling to sustain a subsistence way
of life while facing the existential stress of living in a
village that could be--they're one storm away from being wiped
off the face of the map.
So this is the scientific and social reality that I was
speaking about very publicly when then-Secretary of the
Interior Ryan Zinke abruptly reassigned me to a position
unrelated to my background and experience. I was one of dozens
of senior executives who were reassigned that night in what the
media described as a purge that sent a message to other career
civil servants to keep their heads down on issues that run
counter to the Trump Administration's anti-science and pro-
fossil-fuel rhetoric.
So I became a public whistleblower and a few months later
resigned. It was an agonizing decision to leave public service,
but to this day, I still continue to receive emails and phone
calls from former colleagues, Federal scientists and experts,
many of whom I don't even know, thanking me for being their
voice while their agency leadership silences them and ignores
their expertise and undermines the mission of their agency.
Federal scientists aren't asking for much. They know their
work won't always influence policy. But what they do expect is
the ability to conduct and communicate their research and
findings without interference from politicians, to advance
their careers with publications and presentations, to engage
with peers both within and outside the Federal science
enterprise, and to ensure that their findings are available to
the American public that paid for that research. And,
unfortunately, some agencies have had some difficulty assuring
even these fundamental workplace conditions.
The GAO audit that Mr. Neumann described, constrained as it
was by the methodology, barely scratched the surface of the
dysfunction. For example, that report indicated that all nine
of the audited agencies had addressed the need to ensure a
culture of scientific integrity. At Interior, agency scientists
are self-censoring their reports and deleting the term climate
change to avoid being targeted by political appointees. They're
barred from speaking to reporters without advanced permission
from the agency. They face new barriers to attending the
professional conferences that are part of the job. And their
work is being incompletely communicated to the public, if at
all.
At the EPA, which wasn't part of the GAO audit and the
Agriculture Department, political staff have been withholding
important scientific reports and findings from the public.
These conditions do not reflect a culture of scientific
integrity but a culture of fear, censorship, and suppression
that is keeping incredibly capable Federal scientists from
sharing important information with the public or participating
as professionals in their field. Americans are not getting
their money's worth as long as these conditions persist.
So H.R. 1709 provides a number of measures that would begin
to address this problem. It is a necessary but not sufficient
step for establishing a culture of scientific integrity. The
success of these measures depends on an agency's willingness to
address integrity and ethics issues more generally. As we've
seen, this has been a challenge for the Trump Administration,
so to gain traction, these scientific integrity measures must
be buttressed by broader ethics integrity and anticorruption
measures, some of which the House included in the--in H.R. 1,
the For the People Act of 2019.
So, in conclusion, we face a global climate crisis, and
it's putting Americans and the American economy at risk.
Instead of sidelining science, now is the time to invest more
heavily in research and scientists, restore public trust in the
scientific enterprise that has made America such a great
country, and ensure that our political leaders respect the
links between science, good policy, and well-being.
H.R. 1709 is a great first step and could lead to a
snowball effect of smart, informed policy measures to protect
and enhance the Federal science enterprise, but it will require
commensurate measures regarding general ethics and integrity
across Federal agencies. Thanks again for the opportunity to
testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clement follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. At this point, we will begin
our first round of questions. And the Chair will recognize
herself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Neumann, what role do Federal agencies have in crafting
law?
Mr. Neumann. Well, agencies are to implement the law that's
set through policies.
Chairwoman Stevens. So they implement the laws as they've
been created. What role do agencies have in using data to
interpret scientific findings? There was a Science magazine
article in May of this year that talked about scientific
integrity and the role that data plays in determining
scientific findings and outcomes. Based on your studies, what
have you seen with the role that data is playing in our Federal
agencies?
Mr. Neumann. Well, I think that's a really hard question to
answer specific to scientific integrity. You know, it's--the
work that we did was focused on how agencies' policies were
being implemented. Generally, an agency is responsible for
collecting data and ensuring that data is reliable, and GAO has
a whole body of work looking at how data is often unreliable in
the Federal agencies and making recommendations to improve the
data.
Chairwoman Stevens. Yes. And opening it up to the panel,
are there ways in which we are ignoring data that might be
before us in various agencies that could be unearthed or
utilized for scientific findings or things that might be of
utility for the public? Mr. Clement?
Mr. Clement. Well, certainly, there are lots of examples of
those. I have actually a whole list here that I can submit for
the record if you'd like.
Chairwoman Stevens. That would be great.
Mr. Clement. I'm happy to do that. There are many studies
out of DOI. In particular, you know, this Administration has
canceled them, but there was a study into the rules that would
be necessary to protect the health and safety of offshore oil
rig workers, for example. That study was canceled right before
canceling those measures and regulations that would protect the
health and safety of oil rig workers. There was also a study
underway at the National Academy to look into the health
impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining on people who live
in that region. That study was canceled right before the Trump
Administration canceled the moratorium on leasing for coal on
public lands. So there are lots of studies like that. I can
provide a list. But there have been many instances where other
studies have been withheld.
Chairwoman Stevens. Well, we think of Flint, Michigan, and
the responsibility of our Federal agencies. The Scientific
Integrity Act applies to Federal agencies and not State
agencies. And we look at the role that the Environmental
Protection Agency played in not identifying or unearthing the
data that would have shown that there was something wrong with
the water in Flint.
And so the question and the reason why it's complicated,
Mr. Neumann, is because these are complex topics. And the role
that our Federal agencies have to inform and to provide
information remains paramount.
How did we pass smoking ban acts in the 20th century? We
found the data. We found the data. But it wasn't the Federal
agencies that implemented the law. It was public sentiment that
determined their outcomes.
I don't know if Mr. Halpern has anything more to add here
in terms of the data conversation, but we right now, in the
21st century, have access to more bits and pieces of
information than ever before. What are we missing?
Mr. Halpern. So, certainly, I mean, we need access to that
data, and we need access to the people that can interpret that
data. And we see a lot of environmental problems that are
breaking where communities are desperate for information about
what kinds of threats they face either--whether it's with PFAS
chemicals where scientists at the EPA are supposed to provide
guidance to----
Chairwoman Stevens. And is there opportunity for peer
review?
Mr. Halpern. Can you clarify the----
Chairwoman Stevens. When our scientists at the EPA identify
something like PFAS, which thank you for bringing that up.
That's a big issue for all of us in Michigan. We have the most
identified PFAS sites. But do we just take that as exclusive
information? Does it get peer-reviewed? Does it get reviewed by
other experts? Is there a chance for us to, you know, get a
second opinion?
Mr. Halpern. Yes, so, you know, that kind of peer review
happens within agencies----
Chairwoman Stevens. Fabulous.
Mr. Halpern [continuing]. And one challenge is that a lot
of the time that information then gets submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), at which point OMB can
challenge those findings shielded from public view. And so one
of the--one of the challenges that we have seen with regard to
peer-reviewed science that comes out of agencies, whether it's
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) or EPA
or elsewhere is that the White House can hold up studies
indefinitely if they don't like the results and want to keep it
down. And that's just over the long--you know, the problems
that we have to address over the long term.
I remember a few years ago in West Virginia, there was a
chemical spill that contaminated the water of 300,000 people,
and the people were desperate for information about whether the
water was safe to drink, whether the water was safe to bathe
in. And there wasn't necessarily any specific suppression that
was going on, but because scientists who worked for EPA didn't
know the line to go to, they didn't know what they were able to
talk about, even with the scientific integrity in place--the
policies in place, they did not feel comfortable sharing what--
both what was known and what was not known about the chemical
to keep people safe that it took days for information to come
out. And then the EPA ended up saying, well, maybe, as a
precautionary member--thing, pregnant women should not drink
this water when they had been drinking it for days. And so you
want access to information. You want transparency.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Baird
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You know, as a scientist, I recognize that if you're even
trying to replicate a study exactly, you could, because of
factors being slightly different, come to a different
conclusion. And so I just want to make us recognize that that
is a factor in doing research.
But, Dr. Pielke, in 2017, the National Academies' report on
``Fostering Integrity in Research'' recommended that the
science community should put more focus on detrimental research
practices, including failure to share the data and misleading
use of the statistics and abusive supervision. How should the
Federal agencies address the broad range of detrimental
research practices as part of the scientific community?
Dr. Pielke. Yes, the National Academies' study, ``Fostering
Integrity in Research'' focused on research misconduct, which
is very well-understood. There's clear policies put in place
across the Federal agencies. But detrimental research
practices, failure to provide data, p-hacking, other examples
of dodgy research practices often fly under the radar. I think
it's essential to recognize that not only are the highline
fabrication, fraud, plagiarism issues in science but practices
that lead to inconsistent or unreliable scientific results.
It would be important for the Federal agencies to come up
with policies and procedures to deal with detrimental research
practices. And as we just heard, most significant there is a
failure to release data that accompanies peer-reviewed or
Federal studies such that other independent researchers can
replicate or attempt to replicate those results. That's
important. It's down in the weeds a little bit more wonky, but
I would argue just as important as the high-level issues of
scientific integrity.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Mr. Neumann, do you have any thoughts
in that regard?
Mr. Neumann. Well, the--some of the agencies we looked at
included research misconduct as part of their scientific
integrity policies. Others treated that separately. But there
is clear guidance from OSTP I think back in 2000 that lays out
the process for dealing with research misconduct. So it's a
subset related to scientific integrity, but it's not what we
focused on in our report. We're looking more at the suppression
of science or the--how researchers were being influenced or
censored.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. And, Dr. Pielke, back to you again.
The EPA Science Integrity Office recently held a stakeholder
meeting. According to the press reports at that meeting the EPA
Chief Science Officer said that many inquiries and complaints
were instances of employees confusing science and policy. She
is quoted as describing the complaints as ``my science says
this and the policy ended up over there.'' How should we
implement science integrity procedures that help scientists
understand this difference?
Dr. Pielke. Well, as someone who's run a program at the
University of Colorado training Ph.D. scientists and engineers
to understand the policy process, it is absolutely essential to
provide training and understanding that science does not
dictate policy results. Science informs, it can help to shape
understanding of policy options, but it is a--I think in my
field in academia a professional minefield to think that your
expertise leads to knowledge that then compels a particular
course of action.
As you have said in the opening statement, there's
different interpretations about the significance of science,
what it means for different courses of action, and I think this
is part of becoming an expert--a government expert as a
scientist, understanding the clear differentiation between what
decisionmakers do and how they use evidence, scientific
integrity, and then the role played by those people who produce
that evidence and science to inform the political process.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. In your observation of other science
agencies did you notice any of the others who do a particularly
good job with educating employees on scientific integrity? And
did you identify any rules of thumb that might want to see
agencies follow in educating their staff and maintaining open
lines of communication? Thirty-three seconds.
Mr. Neumann. Yes, seven of the nine agencies we looked at
it have--did take steps to educate their staff, including
having required training, mandatory training or handbooks, and
so those are a variety of practices. But there were two
agencies that did not have any sort of process or activities to
educate staff, just had their policies on their website. So
that's why we believe there should be some educating either
through training or other means of the staff so that everyone
is clear on what the policies are, which is--I think it goes to
the other point you're making that it's really important that
if there is a disagreement on a scientific integrity issue, it
should be able to be investigated, you know, through a process
that's known to staff and that can be adjudicated fairly. And I
think if that's transparent, then we can be more certain that
the process is working.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, and I'm out of time. I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. At this time the Chair would like to
recognize our Chairwoman of the Science Committee, Ms. Johnson,
for 5 minutes of questions.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And
let me say I'm delighted to have the witnesses here. And I'm
also proud to be an original cosponsor of the Scientific
Integrity Act. And I really commend Congressman Tonko for his
hard work in preparing the bill.
As I said, scientific integrity consists of two major
elements. The first is respect for the truth. Science does not
have a political agenda. When science is well done, when
trained professionals can follow the data and subject their
findings to rigorous peer review, the information speaks for
itself.
The second aspect for scientists themselves, as I said, a
big part of the scientific integrity is allowing scientists who
serve this country to conduct their work and unimpeded by undue
outside influence. It's about allowing them to speak freely in
their capacity as experts and with the American public and the
media. It's about allowing them to serve on advisory boards,
join scientific societies, and engage in the scientific
community.
Unfortunately, we know that Federal agencies do not always
make this possible for their scientists. Sometimes, Congress
throws up roadblocks for Federal scientists as well. We really
need to do better.
So on a related note, I want to share my disappointment
about who is missing from our panel of witnesses today. The
Committee invited Dr. Francesca Grifo at the Scientific
Integrity Office of EPA to testify. Of all the scientific
integrity officials across the 2 dozen or so agencies that
conduct oversight of science, Dr. Grifo is arguably the most
experienced and EPA's scientific integrity policies among the
most robust. We were eager to hear from her about EPA's process
for implementing their policy and handling staff issues, as
well as best practices to consider. But EPA refused to make her
available today, and hopefully, we can have her come later.
The EPA did not explain to this Committee why it would not
make her available but only stated in vague terms that they
believe the alternative official would be adequate for today's
meeting.
As the Chairwoman of this Committee, I believe EPA's
response to our invitation was not adequate, and I hope to hear
from her soon.
Nevertheless, I know the panelists who are here before us
today are capable of assisting the Committee in their insights
and experiences, and I look forward to having some questions
answered.
My first question is, how would codifying scientific
integrity protections in the Scientific Integrity Act
strengthen the rights of Federal scientists and enable greater
transparency and accountability for Federal agencies?
And then second, we have a current scientific integrity
group of policies even as they remain in effect proven unable
to counter the Trump Administration's manipulation and
oppression of science.
So I'm asking Mr. Halpern, Mr. Clement, would you two
comment on that?
Mr. Halpern. Yes, thank you, Chair Johnson, for your
question and for being here today.
It's essential to codify these policies precisely because
they are vulnerable to repeal, they are vulnerable to being cut
back at any moment. Any agency at any point, as we've seen with
the U.S. Geological Survey and others, can introduce policies
that compromise the scientific integrity policies themselves.
And so the scientific integrity officers at various agencies
who I speak to regularly have to know how far they can push
before there's going to be backlash from the agency. So
codifying this in law, making sure that we have guaranteed
protections for scientists to be able to share their research,
and for policies to be in place to adjudicate when there is
political interference in the scientific process is essential.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Clement. Thanks for your question. And you're spot on.
This is a big concern. And during my deliberations after my
reassignment, I didn't look to the scientific integrity policy
at Interior to help me out. And that's because it was in the
face of hostile leadership at the agency. And so I think it is
absolutely essential to codify this stuff and give it some
statutory heft. That would have allowed me to use some language
in my whistleblower complaint, for example, that reflected
scientific integrity and hopefully to provide some enforcement
mechanisms that would be effective and useful in the face of
that type of hostile leadership approach to science.
So certainly this would have made a big difference for me
but also for all those many, many Federal scientists who are
holding back because, right now, I think it's safe to say there
probably haven't been a whole lot of scientific integrity
complaints at Interior in the last couple years because no one
dares raise their head above the parapet at the moment because
of the hostile leadership situation.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Halpern. Yes, and we've found that a minority of
scientists were--in surveys that we did of scientists at
Federal agencies were--felt confident in bringing concerns
forward at the Department of Interior and other agencies.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. My time is
expired.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you, Madam Chair. And at this
time I'd like to recognize Mr. Norman for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens.
Mr. Neumann, we've heard a lot in the statements this week
about scientific integrity at EPA. The EPA was part of your
review, is that right?
Mr. Neumann. Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Norman. You made 10 recommendations for 6 agencies and
yet no recommendations for the EPA. What did you find when you
did your review?
Mr. Neumann. Sure. So the way we approached this is we're
looking at what activities agencies took to implement their
scientific integrity policies. We didn't assess how effective
they were. We put that back on the agencies. Are they--do they
have things in place to monitor and evaluate those policies?
Are they educating their staff? Do they have a process for
addressing alleged violations? So EPA met all of those criteria
in the policy, so that our focus is--was pointed or our
methodology was focused on how agencies were taking action to
implement that. That doesn't mean that an agency like EPA won't
have violations of those policies. In fact, we did note in our
report that there were several violations. But it's important
that the staff feel comfortable reporting alleged violations so
they can be thoroughly vetted and determine what the--you know,
whether or not the violation occurred.
Mr. Norman. OK. And also, Mr. Neumann, this Committee has
also conducted oversight on research misconduct. Do agencies
define scientific integrity to include research misconduct?
Mr. Neumann. Some did, some didn't. Some included those in
the policy. There's clear guidance from OSTP from back in 2000
on research misconduct, and so some agencies treated that
separately. Others incorporated it into their overall
scientific integrity policies. It's related, but every agency
approached that a little differently.
Mr. Norman. OK. Dr. Pielke, how would you define scientific
integrity?
Dr. Pielke. Yes, scientific integrity necessarily is going
to require a broad definition, and it basically refers to
respect for the processes of science, the underlying data, and
the ability to communicate that research freely. The devil is
always going to be in the details of how you turn a very broad
definition, which I think is understood, it's characterized in
the National Academy of Sciences, understood in the scientific
community. But going from a broad definition to something, as
we have just heard, that can be implemented consistently across
agencies is where the challenge is.
Mr. Norman. So it would include research misconduct?
Dr. Pielke. Yes, any definition of scientific integrity is
going to have to be, at a minimum, harmonized with existing
policies and procedures on research misconduct. Obviously,
conducting research with integrity would necessarily mean not
engaging in research misconduct, so this is one of the
critiques I have of the existing bill is it's not quite in
harmony yet with existing policies and procedures across the
Federal Government for research misconduct.
Mr. Norman. All right. And so in your written testimony,
you stated that obtaining science advice and policy advice
require different processes and different types of expertise
and public engagement. You pointed out that both rely on
expertise and legitimized by public trust and concluded that
both advisory processes should be conducted with scientific
integrity. Why do you think it's important that both science
advice and policy advice be conducted with scientific
integrity?
Dr. Pielke. So, typically, scientific advice deals with
questions that can be answered empirically with the tools of
science. How how many prairie dogs are in Colorado, for
example. Policy advice involves questions of what do you do?
How do we manage prairie dogs? What are our options? Both sets
require relying on empirical information collected with
integrity, but in the former what you're doing is answering a
direct question posed by a policymaker with the tools of
science. The second one you're going to want to involve
stakeholders, you're going to want to involve members of the
public, and you want to talk about--if you do option A, here's
what you get. If you do option B, here's what you get. They're
different processes. Both are advisory processes, and both
depend on science conducted with integrity beneath them.
Mr. Norman. So what recommendations would you have for how
science integrity principles, how you would incorporate those
into your policy advice processes?
Dr. Pielke. Yes, so I think the--one key distinction is to
recognize that the charge that's given to scientific advisors
is just as important as the advice that they produce. So, as
policymakers, appointed officials, you guys have an obligation
to be very clear in what it is you want from your advisors. A
lot of times what happens is a scientist is brought, perhaps,
before a congressional Committee and Members already know the
answer, they know the policy they want, and they want support
for it. That's fine. That's how politics works.
But in a situation where you want scientific advice, it's
very important to go to FACA committees, National Academy of
Sciences, impanel a special committee to provide that advice
that you want if it is indeed scientific advice. And if you
want options, what can we do, how do we deal with the problem,
how do we make the water cleaner in Flint, Michigan, then
explicitly say we want options. Then we can do a much better
job serving what you need and then produce that information
with integrity.
Mr. Norman. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Norman. And I'll say
certainly not having any process recommendations for the EPA's
scientific integrity would have really made for a great witness
testimony. And certainly with the number of complaints that
are--that were coming in.
But at this time, you know, we're going to recognize the
man of the hour, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes of questioning. Thank
you.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens. And again, thank
you for the hearing. And thank you to all of our witnesses. Mr.
Halpern, Mr. Clement, and Dr. Pielke, thank you for addressing
the need for scientific integrity legislation. And, Mr.
Neumann, thank you for detailing the need to strengthen
scientific integrity policies.
Mr. Clement, what drove you to apply your science policy
experience to serving in government? Was it your desire for
personal wealth and glory?
Mr. Clement. America loves their Federal bureaucrats.
Mr. Tonko. Yes, they do.
Mr. Clement. I always say that you can throw your ideas
over the castle wall all day long, but there is no--and you
just don't know whether they're being picked up. And when
you're inside the castle having an opportunity to influence
policy and management, it's an incredible honor and extremely
gratifying professionally. Public service far exceeded my
expectations both in terms of impact and access and my role in
policymaking. So it has been a--it was a great honor.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And what are the tangible changes
inside our Federal agencies when politics gets put before
science?
Mr. Clement. Well, unfortunately, politics comes before
science quite a lot. But when science is suppressed or
dismissed, then you're leaving your best player on the
sidelines. You know, I would love it if every policymaker
thought of science as their north star the way that I do, but
my hope is that it's at least part of the constellation of
information that they use when they're making their decisions.
But when that's not the case, when it's dismissed or
suppressed, then the American people suffer.
Mr. Tonko. And how might this impact the everyday American
experience?
Mr. Clement. Dirtier air and dirtier water. You know, right
now, we're suffering through a global climate crisis that is
not just putting Americans but also the American economy in
peril right now, so there are lots of ways, more toxic
environments and so on, where health and safety is being
impacted.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And, Mr. Halpern, do breaches of
scientific integrity expose the American people to danger,
whether undermining public health or allowing toxic chemicals
in our air and water? And, if so, can you give some specific
examples?
Mr. Halpern. Yes. In all kinds of ways we see that
happening. And it's--you know, we hear a lot about kind of
environmental-related abuses of science, but I think that you
see this across different agencies.
So one example, the Department of Labor proposed allowing
restaurant employers to control how employees' tips are
distributed. And an analysis of that proposal by the Department
of Labor economists found that this would cause a loss of
billions of dollars and essentially wage theft from the
employees. And in putting forward a proposal, the Department
of--to do this, the Department of Labor suppressed that
analysis. And so when people were making comments on that
particular rule, they were deprived of that information in
order to be able to make informed comments.
The--under the Obama Administration, the White House Office
of Management and Budget removed language from a proposal by
the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to control tobacco by,
quote, ``describing how the rules would keep thousands of
people from taking up cigar smoking'' and removing that
language from the FDA's proposal.
And so we see lots of examples where people directly
benefit from good science-based policymaking where information
is stripped from the public view in order to justify a
scientific--or a policy decision. I don't think any of us think
that science should be policy prescriptive, and that's why the
Scientific Integrity Act is agnostic on those topics. We just
want to be able to have access to the best available scientific
information.
Mr. Tonko. So it's apparent that no matter what
Administration, there's a benefit that comes by tightening up
and statutorily imposing the integrity overviews that these
agencies.
Exposure to the chemicals we call PFAS, including PFOA, is
linked to adverse reproductive health outcomes, including
decreased fertility, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and
preeclampsia. Last year, the Trump Administration intervened to
block publication of a toxicological profile for PFAS. The
report was eventually released following significant public and
bipartisan congressional pressure, but the incident raises
alarming questions.
Mr. Halpern, would the Scientific Integrity Act help
prevent suppression of this kind of life-changing, public
health information?
Mr. Halpern. Absolutely. And it was heartening to me to see
a bipartisan group of Congress step forward and demand that
this kind of information be released. But the Scientific
Integrity Act does mandate specific policies for clearance of
publications. I'll note that, at the EPA, we're still waiting
for the formaldehyde assessment to come out many months later.
An agency where there were no problems, as GAO said, with
regard to what the policy says, but in terms of its actual
impact on the ability of agency to get out scientific documents
on time we find it to be pretty lacking.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. And, Madam Chair, I yield
back.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. And now the Chair recognizes
Dr. Marshall for 5 minutes of questioning. Thank you.
Mr. Marshall. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I'll start with
Mr. Neumann. Mr. Neumann, how long have you been in this
current role then? Did you perform similar reviews of these
agencies with the prior Administration?
Mr. Neumann. We didn't look specifically at this issue, but
I've been leading science and technology performance audits for
the last 6 years.
Mr. Marshall. OK. You made a recommendation about NASA to
develop documented procedures for identifying and addressing
alleged violations of its scientific integrity policy. Can you
describe what you found at NASA and how they responded to your
recommendation, please?
Mr. Neumann. Certainly. When we looked at these agencies,
we asked, you know, what procedures they had in place for
addressing violations, and NASA did not have anything
specifically laid out for scientific integrity policy
violations. They did point to other mechanisms that officials
could--or rather staff could use to report alleged violations
such as going to the IG (inspector general) or reporting things
to their supervisor. But that would not allow for a transparent
and consistent process in accordance with the scientific
integrity policies, and that's why we recommended that they
establish that.
Mr. Marshall. OK. Thank you. Dr. Pielke, you're the only
practicing scientist on the panel, which surprised me. Your
work was targeted by Members of Congress who did not like the
results of your research. What impact did that have on your
work, and how did Members of Congress getting involved in
criticizing science harm the science and policy divide?
Dr. Pielke. Yes, thank you. I think anytime you do high-
profile work that's influential and, you know, Members of
Congress pay attention to it, you become a target of interest
groups and so on. I was surprised that in 2014 first John
Holdren, who was then-President Obama's Science Advisor, put a
6-page screed about me on the White House website. That'll get
people's attention. And then a year later a Member of Congress
opened an investigation of me and my research accusing me of
taking money under the table from fossil fuel companies.
I don't think my career will ever recover from those
events. It is extremely punitive. In this world of social media
where people know you only from what they read, they don't read
your research or see your views, it can be incredibly damaging.
And so I have come out as a strong advocate for academic
researchers, Federal Government researchers to be left to call
it like they see it. And if someone in a powerful political
appointment or a Member of Congress doesn't like it, call them
here and ask them questions. Any question you want about my
research, people can ask. But the minute that it becomes
character assassination, I think the entire base of our ability
to rely on science is at threat.
Mr. Marshall. Wow.
Mr. Halpern. May I support that?
Mr. Marshall. Sure.
Mr. Halpern. Because, you know, I do think that it's--this
is--when scientists see things happen to other scientists, they
notice, and they see when their peers are called before--when
their peers are attacked or when their peers are unjustly
vilified publicly. And so I think it is important for us to
look in the aggregate and look at what opportunities we're
missing in terms of what scientists are willing to say
publicly.
And we know that a lot of people within Federal agencies
across Administrations see it when their peers are called out
for speaking truth to power and sharing information, and they
keep their heads down as well. And that's--that robs us all of
access to that kind of expertise.
Mr. Marshall. Yes, thank you. I'll go back to Mr. Neumann.
You examined the USGS, part of the Department of Interior, as
part of your review, and made one recommendation. Can you
discuss how the Department of Interior was to work with on that
study, your findings, and how the agency is responding, please?
Mr. Neumann. Yes. We certainly had cooperation from the
agency, and they shared, you know, their processes and policies
and activities they were undertaking. And we did find that they
could do a better job of monitoring and evaluating the policies
to ensure that the scientific integrity policies are effective,
so that's something that other agencies are doing periodically
to kind of assess is this really helping, you know, ensure a
culture of scientific integrity. And so we made that
recommendation.
Mr. Marshall. OK. Thank you. Last question back to Dr.
Pielke. You've written that the idea of the scientific
consensus is often misunderstood. And certainly as a practicing
physician, trying to sort through the thousands of studies and
figure out, well, when we build consensus is a big deal, it
usually takes years and decades. What do you need to understand
about consensus in science, and what are the implications for
scientific integrity policies?
Dr. Pielke. Yes, the single most important thing I think
for people to understand about the notion of scientific
consensus, it's not an agreement of everyone on one thing. A
scientific consensus reflects a perspective on the distribution
of views in a community. This is why I recommend the importance
of scientific assessment processes. Academics, scientists are
strong-willed people, they have strong views----
Mr. Marshall. Of course.
Dr. Pielke [continuing]. And you will find outliers on
either side and you--sometimes, if we're lucky, we'll find a
central tendency. But the role of assessments is to
characterize the full distribution of those views. And that
full distribution is the consensus. And if it has a central
tendency, great, and if it doesn't, we want to know that, too.
It's just not one single answer.
Mr. Marshall. Very well said. Thank you, Chairwoman, and I
yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. In 1881, President Garfield from the
OKest State of Ohio passed away. And he passed away because of
a gunshot that he could have recovered from, but he died of
sepsis because those who were caring for him and trying to
remove the bullet weren't washing his hands, 1881.
Now, in the late 1860s Dr. Lister beseeched his colleagues
to apply some of these discoveries to antisepsis in their
operating rooms. It just didn't make it through Pasteur and
Robert Koch, who were scientifically demonstrating the germ
theory.
In 1887, the National Institute of Health was created.
Imagine if we had access to that information. Imagine if our
Congress had access to that information. We could have saved a
President's life.
I'm going to yield to Mr. Beyer, recognize Mr. Beyer for 5
minutes of questioning now from the great State of Virginia.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you. Madam Chair, thank you very much. And
thank you for bringing up President James Garfield. He was
Williams College's only President and only lived about 90 days.
And I highly recommend Destiny of the Republic, which argues
that he was probably the most intelligent President we ever had
so----
Chairwoman Stevens. By Candice Millard, who's coming to see
us----
Mr. Beyer. Oh, good.
Chairwoman Stevens [continuing]. In September.
Mr. Beyer. Excellent. And I really want to thank my good
friend Paul Tonko for years of leadership putting this
together. It's 3-1/2, 4 years, so that's really good work. I'm
glad you have so many cosponsors.
And to my friends on the other side, to Mr. Baird who said
at the beginning let's not play politics with the issue of
scientific integrity. I think that's exactly what we're here
for, that politics intervening with scientific integrity is bad
whether it comes from the right or from the left, and that's
why this bill makes so much sense is to--you know, we pointed
out I think in one of the UCS about how Kathy Sibelius when she
was head of HHS (Department of Health & Human Services) ordered
the FDA Commissioner to reject an application on emergency
contraception and many other issues on both sides. So this is
not partisan.
And I would really encourage and ask again my Republican
friends including Mr. Norman from South Carolina and Dr.
Marshall and others to consider signing onto the Tonko
legislation, and let's invite every Republican on the Committee
to do that. And if you can't, please tell us why you can't, and
what the specific objection is to it because I think this is
something that should unite us as we move forward.
I am concerned, too, about the Union of Concerned
Scientists' survey that had 50 percent across all agencies
either agreed or strongly agreed that political considerations
undermine science-based policymaking, 81 percent at the EPA, 76
percent at the National Park Service.
I'm in business, and when data is really good for me, when
it tells me we're going to sell more cars, I always cut it in
half and then see whether I'd make the same decision. Even if
you cut these numbers that half, 40 percent for the EPA, 38
percent for the National Park Service, that's a real, real
concern.
So, Mr. Clement, I'm so thrilled to see a forest canopy
ecologist. You're the first one ever. And since I've always
wanted to live in a treehouse, it would be fun to talk to you
more about it. But you've left government after 7 years. Do you
feel the scientific integrity concerns and the fear of
harassment and retaliation are driving Federal scientists out?
Mr. Clement. You know, it's hard----
Mr. Beyer. Or discouraging people from coming in?
Mr. Clement. I think we're going to--we're seeing a lot of
scientists leave. There's a bit of a brain drain I think
because of disappointment about how science is being treated in
the Federal science enterprise. More worrisome I think is how
are we going to repopulate this science enterprise? How are we
going to attract good scientists into Federal science if it's
seen as a place where politics can interfere not just with the
use and policy of science but in--with--but they can be
suppressed and actually their careers can be impacted by not
being able to go to conferences and not being able to present
or publish their research.
Mr. Beyer. OK. Thank you. Mr. Halpern, we've seen lots of
reports of brain drain at agencies. I've got more Federal
employees than any congressional district. Do you see the brain
drain as a scientific integrity issue?
Mr. Halpern. I see it as a scientific integrity issue for
sure. We need to be able to attract the best and brightest
minds to Federal service, not to--you know, as Mr. Tonko
suggested earlier, get rich doing Federal work but to
contribute mightily to public understanding of various
environmental and public health threats.
The work that Federal Government science agencies do is
work that no other State agency or company is equipped to do,
that's evaluating public health threats, environmental threats,
helping us understand where to make investments, how to protect
workers, and all kinds of other opportunities to improve
everyone's quality of life. And so the importance of having the
best scientists in these positions cannot be overstated.
Mr. Beyer. Dr. Pielke, I only have 40 seconds left, but how
have you recovered, attempted to recover? Is there a path back
after, you know, your scientific credibility was questioned,
your scientific integrity?
Dr. Pielke. I have become outrageously public in the sense
that I put all of my data, all my research, all my opinions,
who I vote for, everything out in public on Twitter, on blogs
to try to let people who I--know who I am so there's no
ambiguity, my funding. Even so, it's enormously punitive to
have the White House Science Advisor single you out as someone
who's a quote/unquote bad guy.
So this is something that we need to pay more attention to
on both sides. And I have colleagues who have been attacked
from the other side. And if you want to remove someone from
public discussions, there are some people who have that power.
But I'm here today, so obviously I haven't gone away
completely.
Mr. Beyer. Welcome back.
Dr. Pielke. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Beyer. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. We're certainly all about those in the
Executive Office upholding and recognizing truth and calling
out untruths when they see it, so thank you for that great and
important point.
It's also we, in the Science Committee and Subcommittee for
Research and Tech, had a hearing on election security and
around this point about social media and negative infiltrations
because we have had those. We had foreign intervention of
adversaries into our election and in other ways. So truth
indicators remain important.
At this time I'm going to recognize Dr. Foster for 5
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to our
witnesses. Actually, I'd like to start by thanking specifically
Mr. Neumann and the GAO for the quality report you made on this
subject. In a moment--or an hour of insomnia I actually read
it. And I was just so happy to find voices we can trust. That
is absolutely crucial. And it comes up again and again.
I was discussing actually this morning with Ernie Moniz
about how much he--during the Iran nuclear negotiations how
much he depended on the scientific advice from the national
laboratories on what the Iranians could do, how long it would
take them, what we could detect, what we couldn't. You know,
and these are detailed scientific questions.
And then, as a Member of Congress, when I was, you know,
trying to understand if I would vote for the Iran nuclear
negotiation deal or not, you know, I had to go to those same
sources and ask them the same detailed scientific question. And
if I suspected that I was going to get a political spin on
this, it would have been a lot tougher. And so we just depend.
Earlier this week I was actually discussing with Francis
Collins, the head of the NIH, he is not subject to this
advisory committee directive that prohibits people from getting
grants from the agency from being on advisory boards. And he is
very grateful for it. He says they acknowledge conflicts of
interest--it's a real problem--and they manage them. And I
think that, you know, we're never going to escape conflicts of
interest in those--I mean, you know, very often scientific
fields have very small number of experts. And if you start
booting off everyone with any expertise off your advisory
panels, you know, it's just not going to work. And I think you
just have to acknowledge and manage those conflicts of
interest. And there are ways of doing it.
And I think that on both sides of the aisle we view the
NIH, for example, as a fully functional scientific bureaucracy
if you will. And we have to make sure that same confidence
occurs in all Federal agencies. And it comes up also locally,
you know, and with the population.
And in my district, there's a big issue with ethylene
oxide, which is an identified carcinogen. And the question is
what is a safe level there. And the Environmental Protection
Agency, you know, came in, you know, shortly after the
announcement that there were some anomalous emissions, and the
difficulty is they brought in a political appointee with a
background in home construction to talk about the scientific
issues of what a safe level of exposure of ethylene oxide is,
which is not satisfactory to anyone, including the people that
are really looking for strong and valid scientific advice. And
so this is just crucial.
And, you know, when you see, you know, the USDA, for
example, apparently suppressing, you know, scientific advice
on--indicating climate change, you know, for what are
apparently political reasons, then it causes you to distrust
everything the agency does. And so you don't need many bad
actions to just contaminate the whole operation.
And so, let's see, I guess maybe, Mr. Halpern, one of the
things that I struggle with is, you know, there is always in
science statistical uncertainty in any conclusion or just
other, you know, systematic uncertainties. And so I struggle
with, you know, people wanted politics always to say this is
the answer, period, full stop, whereas the scientist always
says, well, it appears the probability is very high that this
or that may be the case. How do you deal with that? Do you have
any advice on how to do that and not make it basically, you
know, contaminating the public's view of science in general?
Mr. Halpern. Well, first of all, we don't want to make it a
game of telephone where the uncertainty is communicated by
scientists to political appointees and then to the American
people. And ethylene oxide is certainly a very complex topic
where you do want to hear--you do want the lines of
communication to be clear, and you do want to hear directly
from the experts. And so I think a lot of the time policymakers
exploit scientific uncertainty as a justification either to
take action or not to take action, that we don't know anything.
Therefore, we can't do anything. And certainly a non-decision
is a decision either to move forward with a public protection
or not with a public protection. And so I think the Scientific
Integrity Act is here to ensure that that communication is
clear, that scientists are able to share that publicly.
And I think, you know, one of the things we have seen with
the GAO report is--and I do want to underscore is the fact that
they did not measure whether or not the policies were
effective. They said that these--that they've implemented these
particular words in their policy, and that they've taken steps
to train scientists on it. But is it actually effective? Does
it actually make a difference? Does it actually allow and
empower scientists to come and talk about what the--what they
know and what they don't know? And we find in a lot of
different cases but that's not the case.
Mr. Foster. Well, thank you. And it looks like I'm out of
time here. I just wanted to thank, you know, everyone one of
our witnesses here for engaging on this subject. There's really
nothing more important to the health of our democracy, so thank
you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. At this time the Chair would like to
recognize Mr. Norman from South Carolina for 1 minute. And just
a reminder, I do have the gavel, sir.
Mr. Norman. OK. I wanted to respond to Congressman Beyer. I
think that's the way you get things done is to look at the
bills and come to an agreement. And I think that's the best
advice I've heard particularly in light of the charade that
went on in the House yesterday. It's a welcome relief to
actually get down to facts. And each of the panelists, I like
what I've heard as far as, you know, let the facts lead you to
the results, not vice versa.
I'm from the private sector. If I'm going to build you a
house, I'll tell you what I can do and what I can't do and let
the facts rule everything on it as long as I reveal it. So
thank you for coming. Chairwoman Stevens, if you would relay
that to Congressman Beyer, and I appreciate him doing that. I
yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. And at this time I'd like to recognize
Ms. Wexton from the great State of Virginia for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair. And it's actually the
great Commonwealth of Virginia, but----
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. So noted.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you for yielding, Madam Chair, and thank
you to the witnesses for appearing today.
I also want to thank Mr. Tonko for his leadership on this
issue and for introducing this fantastic bill, which I strongly
support.
One area that continues to be harmed by disregard for
science in the current Administration is reproductive health,
especially when it comes to women. And women are left to deal
with the consequences of this every day, which includes often
the inability to make our own healthcare decisions.
Madam Chair, I have a letter here from the Jacobs Institute
of Women's Health at George Washington University that
highlights just a few examples of actions taken by this
Administration to use misleading or junk science--and I'll use
quotes around science--when it comes to policy decisions
relating to women's health. And, Madam Chair, I ask for
unanimous consent to enter this letter into the record.
Chairwoman Stevens. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you. Now, one of the examples that this
letter discusses is HHS' 2018 rule that allowed more employers
and universities to exclude coverage of contraceptives in their
health plans. In justification of this rule, HHS misrepresented
decades of research on the efficacy of contraceptives, claimed
greater health risks than actually exist, and cited cherry-
picked studies of poor scientific quality. To make a direct
quote, HHS argued that the body of evidence shows that, quote,
``There is complexity and uncertainty in the relationship
between contraceptive use and unintended pregnancy.''
So HHS is suggesting that the relationship between birth
control and pregnancy is uncertain, and that is astonishing to
me. Of course, there's always more that science can tell about
the exact margins of error and around the rate of effectiveness
of various contraceptive methods and user error and things like
that, but I hope we can all agree that it's ridiculous for HHS
to be saying that there's an uncertain link between
contraceptive use and unintended pregnancy.
Mr. Halpern, I understand that the Union of Concerned
Scientists submitted a comment opposing this rollback of
contraceptive coverage on the basis that it undermines science
and public trust in the agency. Can you talk about the negative
impacts of HHS misrepresenting science in decisionmaking like
this?
Mr. Halpern. Yes. So there--thank you for that question. I
think, you know, there's really nothing that's more important
to people than to be able to make informed healthcare and
personal health choices.
You're right that the impact of political interference in
science is real and that it does tend to impact women and
communities of color more than--and low-income communities more
than other communities just because people being exposed to
more environmental contaminants.
We all rely on the Federal Government to help us evaluate
what types of drugs are effective, what types of information
allows us to make informed reproductive health choices as well,
and it's important for public trust for agencies like Health
and Human Services to represent science fairly and accurately.
The Scientific Integrity Act under consideration today
isn't going to determine what decision that the Health and
Human Services Department makes on these kinds of topics, but
it would require them to show their work. It would require them
to--or provide more impetus for people who do research, if
their work is misrepresented, to file complaints, to correct
the record, and to ensure that the public actually understands
the justification for a specific policy decision.
Science is a political football. Everybody wants science to
be on their side, and there's a tendency by all kinds of
political actors to manipulate or suppress it or misrepresent
it if it doesn't fit the predetermined policies that they want
to put forward, and that's what we need to guard against.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you. And science is something that
depends on peer-reviewed and clear--you know, clear studies.
And I like that you say that it would require that they have to
show their work because then people can see what is being
depended upon. Thank you very much. And I will yield back at
this time.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you to the gentlelady from the
phenomenal Commonwealth of Virginia.
We found ourselves a juicer, so we're doing a second round
of questions. And I'm going to recognize my colleague Mr. Tonko
for another 5 minutes of questioning to our incredible panel.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairwoman.
And in these partisan times it can be easy to dismiss any
call for accountability or transparency as a political attack,
in this case, on the Trump Administration currently is serving.
So, Mr. Halpern, why do you see this legislation as something
that transcends political Administrations?
Mr. Halpern. Well, certainly, we've seen and been able to
document examples of political interference in science dating
back to President Eisenhower. Now, not all Administrations are
created equal. We certainly have more problems in some years
than others. With George H.W. Bush we saw relatively few
challenges to science-based policymaking. With his son, it
ramped up quite a bit.
So I could spend until Friday giving examples of different
ways in which science has been sidelined over the past, you
know, several years dating back to 9/11 when the EPA told
emergency responders that the air was safe and told the public
that the air around Ground Zero was safe when it was not, when
the Department of--when the Department of Interior had
political appointees rewrite scientific documents to preclude
the listing of endangered species under the Endangered Species
Act, when the Obama Administration softened the conclusions of
scientists related to the impact of fracking on groundwater and
drinking water.
We face enormous public health and environmental
challenges. We need access to good science to make informed
decisions, and it is important to recognize that because
science--everyone wants science to be supportive of the
policies that they want to put forward, there's a tendency to
try to fit the science into the box that supports the policy.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you. Does anyone else on the panel
want to respond to that?
If not, let me just indicate we learned from GAO's report
that all 24 agencies have SI (scientific integrity) policies in
response to the 2010 OSTP memo. A handful of them have--as
agencies have a dedicated full-time scientific integrity
officer, too, and a fairly robust written policy. Mr. Halpern,
what would the value of the policy changes in H.R. 1709 be for
these top-performing agencies?
Mr. Halpern. So these agencies are top-performing on paper,
but when it comes to actually protecting the rights and
responsibilities of Federal scientists and Federal employees,
they end up falling short. We even saw yesterday in this very
Committee when Deborah Swackhamer said--was talking about how
she had been asked to change her testimony by a high-ranking
EPA--or White House official, that she refused to do so. And it
was asked whether or not the Inspector General had looked into
this problem, and the Inspector General said they hadn't or
that said later to the press that they hadn't because it wasn't
a criminal offense. And so there really are few mechanisms that
are actually effective to deal with these kinds of abuses of
science.
We've had 10 years for these scientific integrity policies
to be implemented. We see uneven implementation at agencies.
And even at those places like the EPA, which have put in
significant resources into training employees, into making the
scientific integrity officer available to people, we still have
problems.
I think that it's also important to note that the one place
in which we have seen a really critical role for scientific
integrity officers is in dealing with informal complaints and
stopping complaints before they become crises.
Mr. Tonko. So if there's some sort of disagreement or
whatever within agencies, can agencies actually eliminate the
SI office----
Mr. Halpern. That could happen at any time.
Mr. Tonko. So what you're saying is that if the EPA, for
instance, decided to rescind the SI policy or water it so as to
make it impotent and fire the SIO tomorrow, there's nothing
preventing them from doing that?
Mr. Halpern. There's nothing presenting them from
rescinding the policy and likely reassigning the scientific
integrity officer to other duties, which is why it makes it
more difficult for them to be fully independent and to take
these investigations to their full----
Mr. Tonko. And, Mr. Clement, do you have any comments
regarding that?
Mr. Clement. Yes, that's one of the reasons why I think a
lot of us did not rely upon the current policies in--once the
transition to the Trump Administration took place. It's not a
place you want to put your trust and raise your flag if you
think you'll have hostile treatment from agency leadership. So
extremely important to add heft, I think, statutory heft to the
scientific integrity.
Mr. Tonko. Well, I think any such bold steps would not go
unnoticed by the press or this Committee, but that, in and of
itself, remains very troubling. And with that, I yield back,
Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stevens. The Chair would now like to recognize
Mr. Cohen for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Before I begin my questions, I want to submit a document
for the record from the Society of Professional Journalists.
The society supports the need for scientific experts within the
government to communicate more freely with reporters, which is
something the Scientific Integrity Act upholds. So, without
objection?
Chairwoman Stevens. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
Mr. Clement, thank you for your work over the years and
your belief and respect for science. What did your work at the
Department of Interior entail prior to Mr. Trump's regime?
Mr. Clement. Well, my office covered those issues that cut
across the many bureau missions at the agency, so issues like
climate change, invasive species, Arctic issues, and economic
analysis. Mostly my time was focused on the impacts of climate
change upon the missions of the bureaus.
Mr. Cohen. And you worked with scientists and understood
their reports and relayed those to folks at the Department of
the Interior, is that correct?
Mr. Clement. That's correct.
Mr. Cohen. From your research and what you learned while
you were there, what are the dangers to Native Alaskans due to
climate change?
Mr. Clement. Well, they already face right now risks with
unstable and unpredictable ice for transportation and hunting,
but I think most striking is that there are--as indicated by
the GAO of 10 years ago, there are more than 30 villages that
face--that are imminently threatened by the impacts of climate
change, and they need to be relocated.
Mr. Cohen. Because what will happen to those villages?
Mr. Clement. Well, with the lack of sea ice setting up in
the fall and the thawing permafrost beneath their feet, one
storm can erode meters and meters of land at a time. But these
villages are on strips, either peninsulas or islands like the
barrier islands of North Carolina, only they're no longer
frozen in place. So one storm can over top these islands and
put a lot of people in danger.
Mr. Cohen. The 90 degrees the other day in--was it in
Anchorage?
Mr. Clement. Yes, it's uncanny and bizarre what--how warm
it is in Alaska right now.
Mr. Cohen. Do you suspect that was caused by man, climate
change caused by man or was that just an act of God?
Mr. Clement. Well, the temperature on any given day is
weather, right, but we certainly have seen trends that would
support the likelihood of those kinds of heatwaves taking place
in Alaska. Yes.
Mr. Cohen. What happened to you and your colleagues
following Ryan Zinke's horse ride to the Interior Department
and taking over as the chief cowboy?
Mr. Clement. Well, you know, when the Secretary is sworn
in, he has to wait 120 days before he can make any personnel
decisions about senior executives. When--as soon as it was
legally permissible, he--we received notices late on a Thursday
night reassigning us and explaining why. Mine--to give a sense
of the depth of the charade, mine was explained as where--you
have economists on your staff. Therefore, you must know about
accounting, and therefore, we're going to move you to the
accounting office that collects royalty checks from the fossil
fuel industry. That's why we're going to do this.
Mr. Cohen. And was that right after the 120 days had lapsed
or right after you testified to the U.N.?
Mr. Clement. It was a week after I had testified at the
U.N. It was actually 110 days after his swearing-in, but they
just said this is going to happen in 10 days, yes. It was about
a week after I testified at the U.N.
Mr. Cohen. So it was a confluence of two reasons to act.
Yes. And you were reassigned why do you think?
Mr. Clement. Well, I was reassigned in order to get me to
quit. You know, it was----
Mr. Cohen. And basically hush you up?
Mr. Clement. Exactly. I mean, Zinke--Secretary Zinke the
very next week testified to Congress that he intended to use
reassignments as a way to trim the DOI workforce by 4,000
people. And reassignments don't trim the workforce unless you
do so as a way to coerce a resignation, which is unlawful, so
that was pretty clear to us why.
Mr. Cohen. Did Mr. Zinke ever make any statements that you
can recall about science and climate change?
Mr. Clement. You know, and I--he made some statements
during his confirmation hearing that seemed to support the
notion of climate change. He didn't really put his--all his
cards on the table, however.
Mr. Cohen. Since your departure, have you seen any other
efforts at the Department to interfere with scientific
conclusions?
Mr. Clement. Oh, many of them. I have a list here actually
that I can submit for the record. But there have been many
instances----
Mr. Cohen. Can we have that submitted for the record?
Without objection, so done. Done. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stevens. So ordered.
Mr. Clement. I will add the one instance was Secretary
Zinke created a political review process for all the scientific
grants over $50,000. He had this led by an old football buddy
of his, and it's pretty clear that this very nontransparent
approach not only bottlenecked all the grantmaking and research
had to be canceled, but it was obvious that you could certainly
pick and choose those studies that you might like to fund and
those you would not.
Mr. Cohen. Have international relationships been affected
by the Administration's attack on science?
Mr. Clement. Well, I work in the Arctic context. The Arctic
Council, those are the eight Arctic countries that are very
alarmed by climate change in the Arctic. It's a major driver up
there. And the U.S. has gone from first to worst in terms of
these issues. And I think this came to a head in May when
Secretary Pompeo, Secretary of State Pompeo, met with the other
seven ministers, foreign ministers from the other countries of
the Arctic. Every 2 years they sign a ministerial declaration
saying here are our priorities and agenda for the coming 2
years. For the first time ever, the Arctic Council ministers
did not sign a ministerial declaration because Secretary Pompeo
would not allow language about climate change to be included in
that declaration. So it was a very embarrassing diplomatic
incident.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you for your service and for your courage.
I yield back the balance.
Mr. Clement. Thank you, sir.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you indeed. And the Chair at this
point would like to recognize Ms. Bonamici for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. Thanks to the Chairs and
the Ranking Members, thank you to all the witnesses. I've been
on the Science Committee my entire time in Congress, and we
know that peer-reviewed, evidence-based science can and should
support and inform public policies, but unfortunately, we've
seen suppression, censorship, manipulation of science in this
Administration, and there are countless examples of undermining
scientific integrity
I think about the--in 2017 when the Department of Health
and Human Services terminated an evidence-based teen pregnancy
prevention program and instead redirected funding to
abstinence-only education, which is jeopardizing the health of
young people over ideology.
I've been working on asbestos issues, and I've been
extremely concerned that the EPA issued a rule that merely
restricted the use of asbestos when about 60 other countries
completely ban it, so they were--actually disregarded the
advice of their own scientists and lawyers who advocated for a
complete ban of the deadly carcinogenic substance in two
internal memos. The EPA has no excuse for disregarding that
science and the health of the American people.
And as Mr. Clement was just talking about, despite the
findings from the Fourth National Climate Assessment produced
by scientists at 13 Federal agencies, the Administration
continues to censor and suppress the term climate change, which
is incredibly baffling but also dangerous. The climate crisis
is an existential threat and of course a national emergency.
Mr. Clement, thank you for your tireless work as a public
servant. In your testimony, you discuss how providing
policymakers with accurate and reliable science helps inform
better decisions and that scientists should have a realistic
expectation to be able to conduct and communicate their
research without political interference. With these new
realities, we have to prepare how to shape scientific integrity
policies that can remain effective when we're confronted by an
Administration that's hostile to science.
So how has this censoring of science from the public at the
Department of Interior affected the quality of regulatory
action? And what protections can we put in place for Federal
employees who want to inform the public about scientific
information but are suppressed by political officials?
Mr. Clement. Well, you know, even at the USGS, which is a
nonregulatory body, we're seeing a lot of this censorship take
place, so it doesn't even seem to be necessarily decisions that
are linked to what we call these industry handouts at Interior.
But there's a lot that can be done to support the scientists as
they do their work, whether--as I mentioned earlier, you can't
assume that your science is going to become policy. It's not
that simple.
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Mr. Clement. But you certainly can make--you can assume
that you're going to be allowed to do your work, that you're
going to be able to communicate that work to the public and to
your peers. You're going to be able to participate with other
scientists publicly in conferences, speak to the media. These
are all things that you would expect to do as a scientist
anywhere, and it's no different in the Federal science
enterprise.
So the H.R. 1709 goes a long way toward formalizing that,
but also I think there's--it's important that there be measures
taken to ensure ethics and integrity more broadly across the
agency because scientific--a culture of scientific integrity is
not likely to take hold if a notion of integrity is not taking
hold in an agency. And right now, we're seeing certainly at
Interior--where I'm most familiar--that's a real challenge.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Halpern, in
your testimony you mentioned that the April 2019 GAO report did
not evaluate the effectiveness of the scientific integrity
policies at nine Federal agencies, and GAO identify the Office
of Science and Technology Policy's December 2010 scientific
integrity memo as the guidance framework for Federal scientific
integrity policies.
So should the OSTP memo be considered the gold standard for
integrity policies? And as this Committee considers
Representative Tonko's Scientific Integrity Act, what
opportunities exist to strengthen enforcement and effectiveness
of those policies?
Mr. Halpern. Yes, thank you. So I see the memorandum from
December 2010 as a starting point. That was what came out when
we didn't know what was going to work in Federal agencies. And
so they put together a set of principles basically and asked
the agencies to come up with scientific integrity policies.
Some of them did. Some of them restated those principles and
put it on a shelf and called it a day. We know from the GAO's
reporting that the Department of Energy pretty much forgot that
they had scientific integrity policy and didn't even assign a
scientific integrity officer to be the point of contact for
understanding what it was.
And so I think we need to think of the language in the
Holdren memo from December 2010 as a philosophical starting
point but not necessarily think of it as the letter of the law.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I see my time is expired. I yield
back.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you so much. At this time I'm
going to recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning. And I'd
also like to enter into the record the Climate Science Legal
Defense Fund on behalf of Congresswoman Sherrill. And without
objection, so ordered.Mr. Halpern, could you shine a little bit
more light for us on the process and maybe give us some advice
on weighing scientific fact versus policy at our Federal
agencies?
Mr. Halpern. The process of evaluating scientific integrity
violations or----
Chairwoman Stevens. The process of evaluating violations
and/or the way in which we can take scientific recommendations
from our Federal agencies to influence and impact policy and
improve outcomes, particularly when there are violations.
Mr. Halpern. Right. I think a lot of people are surprised
that there were 24 agencies that developed policies. It was
everything from the Consumer Product Safety Commission to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. And so you see science on so many
different issues and topics where science needs to inform
policymaking, and we need to be able to make good decisions.
Again, we're not talking about science being policy
prescriptive. The bill in question is agnostic on the weight
that science should be given to a specific policy decision. But
it is important to protect the process that allows scientists
to share their research with the public.
Chairwoman Stevens. What does it mean when Federal
employees are banned from using certain words as they try and
do their work?
Mr. Halpern. So we saw at CDC (Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention) that scientists were prohibited from using
phrases like evidence-based in describing their work in budget
proposals. We've seen climate change as a word that scientists
have either been told to avoid or have decided to keep their
heads down and not talk about publicly. The surveys that we
have done at Federal agencies found hundreds and hundreds of
scientists reporting either being told not to talk about
climate change or self-censoring and deciding that they are not
going to step into that space to begin with. And so this robs
the American people of being able to understand the threats
that we face and it makes it easier for elected--for elected
officials and other policymakers to make decisions without any
type of accountability, to cherry-pick the information that
they want to put forward to justify their decisions without a
check--without a check on that. If the science isn't there, if
scientists aren't able to share publicly their research
results, that void is going to be filled by all kinds of
misinformation and spin.
Chairwoman Stevens. Can career Federal civil servants be
fired for kind of not taking that advice from--or
recommendations or enforcement from not using that language?
Mr. Halpern. So, right now, when scientific integrity
violations are brought forward in agencies that have
adjudication methods, scientists--the scientists--the
scientific integrity officer and usually a committee that's
associated with that will evaluate whether there has been a
loss of scientific integrity, whether someone's been censored,
whether there has been manipulation or suppression of research
methods and the like.
And at that point there's a--it's not clear about what the
recourse is. It's not clear about what public reporting there
has to be related to the details of abuses of science. It's
kind of up to the agency to say trust us, and it's become
pretty clear that we can't trust them, that Congress needs to
do both oversight but also put in place protections that are
mandated through law that not only evaluate--that allow and
empower these agency scientific integrity officers to do their
jobs and to adjudicate these things but have consequences for
those who transgress.
Chairwoman Stevens. Did anyone else on the panel want to
weigh in on the importance of having an independent scientific
integrity official? Go ahead. We'll go to Mr. Clement and then
Dr. Pielke.
Mr. Clement. OK. I do. I--you know, this is something that
would serve the agency and serve the career staff a lot, and it
certainly would have served me as well. There--for every type
of complaint, you have somewhere you can go. If it's a civil
rights complaint, you have a civil rights office. If it's
sexual harassment, you have the Merit System Protection Board.
If it's a whistleblower complaint about public health and
safety, you have the Office of Special Counsel. But in the case
of scientific integrity, right now, you really have an
unreliable process that--it's great that it exists, but there's
nowhere that you can go you can count on having that kind of
arbitration take place, so it's an absolutely essential----
Chairwoman Stevens. Yes. Go ahead.
Dr. Pielke. Yes, I just want to make one point about the
politics of this proposed legislation. It clarifies and expands
congressional oversight of the executive branch. And one reason
why we're talking about the John Holdren memo of 2010 and not
2013, 2014, 2015 is that--my hypothesis is that the Obama
Administration slowed down scientific integrity issues because
what they were doing was handing over to the Congress a new
tool with which to have oversight over the executive branch.
So this is very difficult legislation, I would think,
because at some point it's going to hit one party or the other.
So if the Republicans were still here--they're not--I would say
this is an investment in your future. For Democrats, it's an
investment in today to oversee the Republican Administration.
But this is where I think the interests of Congress have to
outweigh the party affiliation, which makes it so difficult.
Mr. Halpern. Administrations----
Chairwoman Stevens. Yes.
Mr. Halpern [continuing]. Always say we're the good guys,
trust us, we can govern ourselves and oversee the right
information, and the opposite proves to be true.
Chairwoman Stevens. Mr. Neumann.
Mr. Neumann. Yes, I would just like to add that, you know,
policies are just one part of scientific integrity. And
certainly, we heard about that today. I mean, staff need to
feel comfortable reporting alleged violations, and there needs
to be a consistent and transparent process for investigating
those violations and addressing--taking action in accordance
with the results.
Chairwoman Stevens. Yes, and it could actually be a
positive reinforcement as well, you know, for the work that
people are doing or a safe space to have conversations and to
adjudicate or litigate, you know, maybe a tertiary way to do
peer review in some respects.
I think one thing is clear, that we are so grateful to all
of our career Federal civil servants, who I think in these
heightened and polarized times, no matter what segment of
government you're working in or what topic, your work can
sometimes feel difficult. And there's a lot of gratitude that
we here on the Science Committee in particular have for our
career Federal civil servants, those who make the National
Institute of Standards and Technology's office hum with their
great expertise, our VA officials and our medical professionals
who help to run our Veterans Affairs Department.
And taking office in the 116th Congress, being sworn in for
the first time as a newly elected Member of Congress during a
government shutdown, that set a real ricocheting effect I think
for our entire freshman class being that we saw our government
not functioning. And we're here to make sure that we do have a
trusted and important voice and certainly the strong checks and
balances.
So I'm going to yield back the remainder of my time and
want to, you know, bring the hearing to a close and thank our
witnesses for testifying before the Committee.
It's not necessarily that this ends on a failed crescendo
by any stretch of the means. In fact, this is part of the
important and essential dialog that we're having. This is a
national news story around scientific integrity. There are
changes happening to Administrations. We didn't even talk--get
to ask questions because they weren't necessarily relevant to
our expert witnesses here, but the changes taking place over at
the USDA. And our Ranking Member Mr. Baird is now at a USDA
hearing on I don't know what topic, but he does serve on the
Agriculture Committee. And we do know that the USDA has moved
their researchers out of D.C. and into Kansas for cost-saving
measures.
And we've got to have frank and open and honest and
trustworthy conversations. I don't think we should be afraid of
language. I don't think we should be afraid of inconvenient
truths and things that we do not want to hear. And in fact,
we're uniquely positioned in America to embrace challenges, to
solve the impossible, to run after each other when we have an
idea just like the people who hit the lands that ended up
discovering America, challenged their notions of truth by
saying, aha, the world is not flat, aha, I will sail across
that great ocean, aha, I think we can go to the moon, as we
were discussing and hearing yesterday, that we can push the
boundaries to achieve greatness as couched within our great
innovative capabilities as a Nation.
And in fact, we really in America don't need to be afraid.
We have courage, we have determination, and we have the eye on
the prize, which is the truth.
So thank you all for joining today. The record will remain
open for 2 weeks for additional statements from Members and for
any additional questions from the Committee that may be asked
of the witnesses.
The witnesses are now excused, and the hearing is
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. John Neumann
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Michael Halpern
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Joel Clement
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Haley Stevens
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letters submitted by Representative Paul Tonko
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Correspondence submitted by Representative Ralph Norman
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letter submitted by Representative Jennifer Wexton
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Document submitted by Representative Steve Cohen
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letter submitted by Representative Mikie Sherrill
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]