The Case for Scientific Integrity
Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched an investigation into its own Administrator, Scott Pruitt. The agency’s office of scientific integrity needed to determine if Pruitt had violated a major ethics policy when he cast doubt on the scientific consensus that human activity is driving climate change.
EPA’s scientific integrity policy, in place since 2012 but originating from the 1999 “Principles of Scientific Integrity,” requires EPA officials to “conduct, utilize and communicate science with honesty, integrity, and transparency, both within and outside the Agency.”
While 70 percent of Americans recognize that “global warming is happening,” only 49 percent know that most scientists agree with them. Nearly a third of Americans think there is a lot of disagreement in the scientific community on the topic of climate change.
That’s where scientific integrity policies come in. These policies set standards for how objective, independent science will be conducted and reported at science-oriented federal agencies. With strong scientific integrity policies that are fully enforced, we can be confident that the science our government is producing is truly objective and independent, with no meddling from powerful lobbying groups or other political or financial interests.
That’s why I introduced H.R. 1358, the Scientific Integrity Act, earlier this year. That bill would establish a standard for scientific integrity policies across the federal government, empowering science watchdogs at each relevant agency to maintain a firewall between scientific findings and political or special interest meddling.
So how did the Trump Administration respond to the EPA investigation of its own politically-appointed Administrator?
They buried the science.
First, they removed language on the EPA website that said, ”Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change.”
Next, they expelled scientists from EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) to be replaced by “industry experts,” a euphemism for lobbyist, a move that I criticized heavily in a letter to the journal Science.
And just this week Scott Pruitt announced a new U.S. government initiative created with the sole purpose of undermining the peer-reviewed scientific consensus on climate change.
Confronted with the facts, the Trump Administration responded by burying them. Or trying, anyway.
The problem doesn’t stop at the EPA’s edge. Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry recently added his voice to the climate denial hoax. President Trump’s pick for chief scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture is not a scientist.
Why does this matter? Public science informs national policy on everything from pesticides to power grids. Our nation’s cities and states need credible information to prepare for climate change. Our families deserve to know if unsafe chemicals are being sprayed on their food, dumped in their water or added into the products they buy. And, as your representative, I need to be able to trust these facts so I can make better decisions about how to help keep America’s families safe. All of us need to know if we’re getting a polished lie or the unvarnished truth.
Some of the most powerful people in the world are turning their backs on science and, in turn, on the people and communities they serve. In this moment, standing for free and independent public science might be the most important, most urgent thing we can do for our children and for generations to come.
