Many scientists including me have advocated that public policy decisions should be based on science. Of course, advocacy doesn’t always lead to action. But these four pieces of legislation offer some important lessons about what it means in practice. So, what can we learn? 

Science will never be the sole input to policy   

At least in my experience, public policy decisions are never based solely on scientific input and evidence. After all, we live in a constitutional democracy and the voices of the governed must be part of the decisionmaking process. But while scientific evidence will not dictate that only one policy approach is viable, it can and should provide the guide rails for policy.    

Take the PACT Act which expands health care for veterans exposed to toxins, increases screenings for exposure and fundamentally changes the burden of proof of exposure to the Veterans Administration adopting a presumption of exposure and providing care.  

Scientific evidence told us that veterans exposed to toxic pollution from sources such as burn pits were suffering serious health consequences linked to their military deployment. To be sure, there are some who hold a different view or argue that other factors may be involved such that causality can’t be proven.  Both things can be true based on the evidence. But the policy decision should be based on what is best for the public, of course including veterans and their families.    

Does the PACT Act address every problem that veterans face from toxic exposure? Of course not. But it does respond to the scientific evidence and to the views of veterans themselves. It provides an opportunity for veterans to get the care that they need. Science played a role, and public advocacy did too.   

Science and incentives together 

The CHIPS Act makes important investments in research, development and production of semiconductors in the United States. Ninety percent of semiconductor production is currently based outside of the United States and the global pandemic exposed the structural risks that fact poses to the US economy.  

Boosting semiconductor research plays an important role in restoring the capacity to innovate in this highly competitive industry. So, too, does the bill’s provisions for workforce development and incentives to boost more domestic semiconductor production.  

But it isn’t as though it will transform high-tech manufacturing quickly.  After all, it was industry’s policy choices to offshore most manufacturing to save costs. It will be private industry’s decision whether to onshore again. The US government is merely aligning incentives both financial and in intellectual property. But at least it is doing so based on an economic analysis of the industry.   

You can’t always get what you want… 

But if you try sometime, you might get (some of) what you need. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act can’t be anyone’s idea of real control over the guns that are everywhere in American society. It’s a political compromise with some simple changes to gun laws and some new investment in mental health services.   

Both these steps are sensible and follow some of the scientific evidence on gun violence and policy in America. Nowhere near sufficient. But increased background checks for young gun purchasers and keeping guns from those already known to exhibit violent behavior may help.  And it would be hard to argue that increased support for mental health programs and community efforts to reduce gun violence is a bad thing. Science-based policy? That doesn’t mean that the legislation took on all of the evidence.  But at least there is no longer a ban on the government researching gun violence.  Small steps indeed. 

We can’t handle the truth… 

But maybe we aren’t ignoring it any longer. The Inflation Reduction Act makes some serious investments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to slow global warming.  The range of investments is broad, reaching from clean transportation to farming, renewable energy to environmental justice. All of it and more is needed. All of it and more responds to the scientific evidence of a warming world caused by human activity and the need for the US to take bolder action.    

Are we done?  Far from it. Climate caused emergencies, particularly impacting the most vulnerable communities, are very much still with us and aren’t going away.  But maybe we are finally recognizing that scientific evidence should guide policy more than unsubstantiated opinion and orchestrated disinformation campaigns to confuse the public.   

Extreme heat, drought and wildfires have been the story of this summer. But the summer has also seen  some real progress for science-based policy. And advocacy for those policies from the public including the science community. We aren’t done. We aren’t even close. The opposition to action that serves the public isn’t going away.  

It’s hard to be an advocate for science-based policies and then see enacted what too often feels like half measures, or too little too late. But to stop advocating for what is needed probably means a halt to any action.   

So keep at it. I will.   

Great! That’s a win!  But, unfortunately, it addresses only a small part of the puzzle of monitoring and reducing the release of these dangerous toxic chemicals into the environment. 

A scary pollution problem

Forever chemicals have been used in manufacturing for many years, as a component of fire-fighting foam particularly on military bases, and as a coating on products. When we at the Union of Concerned Scientists analyzed PFAS contamination in groundwater and drinking water, we found that levels were especially concentrated at military bases and in marginalized communities, often going tens of thousands of times above the levels that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry consider a health risk. And there are thousands of chemicals in the PFAS family.  Companies keep innovating and changing formulations of the chemicals to increase their use and, frankly, to avoid national and international regulation as shown in their recent lawsuit against the EPA regulating the chemicals as a class. And these substances—the whole class—are toxic: they are known to cause cancer and other pollution-related disease.  Not only has the industry, directly or through their aggressive trade association, the American Chemistry Council, sought to avoid regulation, they have also hidden information on the health impacts of forever chemicals for decades.  It is a classic case of an industry using the Disinformation Playbook. 

This PFAS class of chemicals simply don’t break down the way many other contaminants do. As a result, even small releases of these chemicals accumulate and accumulate and build and build such that ultimately, PFAS chemicals are shown to be everywhere and in the blood of virtually every person on Earth.  In fact, when industry was trying to study PFAS in people, they could not find a baseline (i.e. they could find no group of humans that did not have these chemicals in their blood). They had to use blood samples from Korean War vets, which predated the wide distribution of PFAS chemicals. Just this week it was reported that new studies show that PFAS substances are in rainwater everywhere on earth at levels above those considered safe. That’s astonishing and terrifying. Because we know these chemicals are far from benign.

Lack of data doesn’t mean lack of pollution

As part of its effort to conceal the scale of pollution, the chemical industry and their clients have tried to reduce the requirement that they report on releases or dumping of forever chemicals. Until recently, the EPA did not include reporting of PFAS substances in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) so companies were not required to report releases, essentially concealing the information from the public.  The effort to conceal information was especially intense during the Trump Administration when concern over public relations resulted in suppression of a scientific report about this class of chemicals. 

The Biden Administration had, and still has, a real opportunity to finally take action on forever chemicals.  And, amazingly enough, there is bipartisan support to do so. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2020, passed in both houses of Congress and signed into law, included several PFAS provisions. Specifically, it calls for increased reporting of PFAS pollution including through the TRI. But the EPA rules contained numerous loopholes for industry and the military that allowed them to avoid reporting.  Our lawsuit sought to close those loopholes. 

In particular, there was a loophole for so-called “de minimus” content of PFAS, such that if the percent of the total volume of a release was low, no reporting was required. Of course, a small percentage in a huge volume can still be a lot of a chemical, especially one that never breaks down!  But that de minimus exemption has been invoked again and again by industry.  Now, thanks to the lawsuit, the loophole for de minimus content should be closed.

As Laurene Allen, a National PFAS Contamination Coalition leadership team spokesperson and one of our co-litigants in the lawsuit put it: “Thanks to EPA’s loopholes, communities, scientists and lawmakers don’t know which PFAS are being used, in what amounts, or to what extent companies are dumping PFAS in our air or water. Allen is also a resident of Merrimack, New Hampshire, where known PFAS-polluter Saint Gobain Performance Plastics operates a major facility. “PFAS remain largely unregulated, so communities depend on accurate reporting to figure out how to advocate for themselves,” she said. “EPA must close these loopholes immediately and force companies to accurately disclose their PFAS pollution.”

One small step…

There is still a long way to go to get effective reporting and regulation of forever chemicals. A team from EarthJustice, the lead attorneys for our lawsuit, has evaluated actions taken on a roadmap the EPA created to deal with the messy, dangerous, and pervasive threat to health that these forever chemicals present. And on a lot of the steps, the EPA is failing.

So, this recent legal victory was a win—a small, but impactful, win. But the effort to hold government to account must continue, through public pressure, litigation, and in Congress.  Forever chemicals aren’t going anywhere. Those of us who care can’t give up the fight. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists began speaking out about one aspect of the epidemic of gun violence nearly a decade ago: the virtual prohibition on federal funding for research into the public health impacts of gun violence that was put in place by Congress in the 1990s after heavy lobbying by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups. Even though gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, overtaking car accidents in 2020, the use of federal funding has been prohibited to investigate the role of gun violence or possible means of reducing death and injuries from guns.

Cars vs. guns

Let’s think about that unconscionable prohibition, which only began to be lifted in 2019.

For automobiles, also a major cause of death and injury, research has helped lead to many safety requirements, including airbags, electronic stability control, safety belts and the LATCH child safety seat system. Comprehensive statistics on automobile safety have been collected since the 1960s. That research is broad and heavily funded by the federal government, totaling more than $660 million in 2020 grants to the states alone.

For gun violence, however, there is federal data going back only to 2015 with sporadic information from earlier years. And virtually no federal funding for research into gun violence was available for many years prior to 2019.

Federal gun safety measures were enacted in 1968 following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Since then, the principle federal measures have been a temporary five-day waiting period before a gun can be delivered to a buyer, which was enacted in 1993 and expired in 1998. Background checks are still required to discover if purchasers are convicted felons who remain legally prohibited from owning firearms. For ten years—from 1994 to 2004—there was a limited ban on assault weapons. And Congress has exempted the gun industry from liability for any act of violence resulting from the use of their products, unlike virtually all other industries.

A trickle of funds

The congressional ban on funding research into gun violence was lifted in 2019. But that doesn’t mean there has been a major investment in this scientific work.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has granted 16 two-year research grants totaling just under $8 million starting in 2020. The objectives of the granting program are to inform the development of enhanced safety measures to prevent injuries, deaths and crimes, and to evaluate the effectiveness of safety strategies to reduce firearm related injuries, deaths and crime, including for families, schools, and communities. The CDC research effort is guided by a National Academy of Sciences report from 2013.

Spending $8 million for research into safety measures to reduce more than 45,000 deaths and countless injuries is not a lot of funding.

The CDC also funded ten state health departments to collect data on emergency room visits from non-fatal firearms injuries but these programs are new. There is no historical federal data because the states haven’t been collecting it. There is a national system for collecting data on violent deaths administered by the CDC as well as a system for collecting data on school violence.

CDC under Biden

Without a formal ban on research, the CDC under President Biden is slowly expanding its efforts. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky gave an interview to CNN on the topic expressing interest and concern about gun violence from a public health perspective. That immediately enraged the National Rifle Association (NRA), of course. Even talking about gun violence, let alone researching approaches to make gun ownership safer, is apparently threatening to the NRA – while the group apparently perceives 45,000 deaths and the shooting of school children with assault weapons as not really a problem.

President Biden, in a recent speech called for banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, expanding background checks, enhanced safe gun storage rules, and enacting red-flag laws to enable law enforcement to temporarily remove guns from a person deemed dangerous by family and friends. All of these measures have been shown by research to reduce gun violence while still allowing responsible gun ownership.

Research can and should help lead the way to find solutions to the most difficult public policy challenges. But only public pressure can shift the political barriers to greater understanding of problems and the implementation of effective policies.

We have learned a lot about epidemics in the past two years. It is long past time to address the epidemic of gun violence.

The new changes reverse some, but not all, decisions by the Trump administration which had constrained the types of impacts environmental reviews could consider and the discretion agencies could take in meeting NEPA’s requirements. For example, the Trump administration directed reviews to focus only on so-called direct impacts, ignoring indirect or cumulative effects. If a permit was under consideration for a facility that would fill wetland, emit pollution or otherwise impact the environment, for example, agencies could only look at the immediate “foreseeable” effects of that activity.  But, under Trump administration policy, they were directed to ignore other permits in the same area, the overall degree of habitat loss, pollution burden, community impacts, or the longer-term effects of climate change or secondary pollution.

The new rules, which take effect in 30 days, also eliminate a key Trump administration restriction that had allowed agencies to consider only the purpose and need for a project as defined by those proposing it. In other words, agencies weren’t allowed to think about impacts other than those the proponents stated were intended—ignoring the fact that unintended consequences often cause the largest problems. The new Biden rules allow agencies more flexibility in defining purpose and need, crucially including community input as part of that process.

Finally, the Trump administration wouldn’t allow agencies to go beyond its guidelines in considering other factors and effects, essentially making the guidelines a “ceiling” for the requirements of the analysis. By contrast, the Biden Administration is using the guidelines as a minimum standard or “floor” for analysis, giving agencies flexibility to include other statutory requirements within the NEPA review.

More changes to come

The latest changes represent “phase one” of coming NEPA rule changes. The Biden administration has yet to remove other key, damaging changes promulgated under Trump, such as arbitrary time and page limits regardless of an action’s complexity or scope. Those limitations serve no useful purpose. 

In phase two, hopefully the administration will strengthen the process so it works more in the public interest.  For example:

• Rather than merely considering the impact of climate change, future NEPA analyses could require explicit and targeted documentation about who will be most impacted.
• Rather than just evaluating cumulative impacts, future NEPA analyses could require explicit consideration of alternatives that reduce impacts on overburdened communities–usually communities of color and low income communities.
• Future NEPA analyses could be directed to include much clearer requirements for input and engagement from impacted communities, and better justifications for choosing one action over others with lesser or different impacts.
• Future guidelines could specifically allow for the inclusion of other forms of information in the analyses, such as community members’ lived experience and traditional indigenous knowledge.
• Rather than arbitrary timelines that can be gamed by applicants, the NEPA process could specify timelines and requirements that allow for full information sharing between applicants, agencies, and the public even before the formal review begins.

These are just a few ideas from my own understanding of NEPA and its importance in serving the public interest.  I hope many others will engage in the process as this administration takes its next steps.  For now, here’s thanks to President Biden for a much-needed and reasonable first step.

But now they are hurting our dogs (and cats). It has been reported that Seresto and other collars (e.g. Hartz Mountain) containing dangerous pesticides approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been implicated in 1,700 pet deaths and 75,000 cases of animal harm. 

E.A. Crunden at Energy and Environment News reported at the end of last week that managers at the EPA prevented scientists from speaking out about the evidence that these flea and tick collars are harming dogs (and cats).  There was little subtlety.  According to the article, the manager told scientists,  “It would be inappropriate for you to respond in your official capacity and express your personal opinions.” The staffer fired back and noted that that manager had been part of efforts telling staff “not to express our concerns about Seresto in emails” presumable to shield information from becoming public through Freedom of Information Act requests. This despite EPA’s Scientific Integrity policy that specifically allows scientists to speak about their scientific work in their official capacity and as experts.

Even so, the EPA has let its approval of the products stand, despite repeated requests from scientists in the agency to adhere to the evidence, reconsider its approval and save the dogs (and cats).  The Center for Biological Diversity obtained the internal communications under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Silencing government scientists causes harm

I fully admit to being a dog lover (I even like some cats). And to my outrage over this case.  Why would a manager prevent scientists from speaking out about evidence of harm?  No doubt the companies (Elantco and Bayer)  will continue to be defensive.  A Google search brings up this information:

“Is Seresto harmful to dogs?

The pest-preventing chemical in the Seresto collar is designed to stay within the oils and oil glands of your pets skin, with no to minimal amount of absorption in to your pets body, which generally makes them very safe with few systemic reactions.”

Amazon gives the collars a 5 star rating.  I am sure the manufacturers are pleased.  But as the FOIA revealed one of the EPA scientists was concerned about the Amazon ratings. “I hope this time someone can blow the lid off this travesty.  Still nearly perfect scores on Amazon! I had to dig to get to a negative review on the product when I looked several years ago and the most helpful positive review from purportedly from a vet who used it on his 3 dogs…”

Despite what Google and Amazon might say,  that’s not what EPA scientists report.  And, of course, all of us with dogs (and cats) can only rely on our vets – whose information comes from the companies–and the places that sell these products.  That’s the very reason why the public must hear from the scientists at he EPA.  We need independent science, not marketing.

So yes, violations of scientific integrity cause real harm.  Yes, there should be consequences for the managers that suppressed information at the EPA.  Yes, we need to listen to the scientists in the agency, not just the company with a vested interest in selling these products.  You hurt my dog, there should be hell to pay.

On February 7, Eric Lander, White House science adviser and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) resigned in the wake of an internal investigation. That investigation into Lander’s management of OSTP found “credible evidence” that he had bullied and mistreated staff. Lander’s own statements and letter of resignation verified these findings.

Lander had to resign—there was no way the Biden administration could allow him to stay while abiding by their stated zero-tolerance principles—but the story shouldn’t end there. Instead, it offers us a chance to demonstrate that productive and creative science, and science policymaking, value dissenting voices, give opportunities for everyone to contribute, and recognize those contributions. Productive and creative science requires a workplace that is diverse, inclusive and equitable. This collaborative, horizonal framework values everyone, rather than centering on the voice, opinions or ego of any one person, no matter how senior.

Many groups, including 500 Women Scientists, posed serious questions about Lander’s management record before he was appointed to OSTP and named science advisor. Managing a professional staff and creating an equitable workplace isn’t a trivial qualification for a position like this. The administration officials that nominate appointees and the senators who confirm them need to take seriously how a nominee will lead the people in an agency and set the tone for the agency as an institution that staff and the public alike can trust.

Leadership matters, and toxic leadership undermines any highly skilled workforce. This is true across government, including for science and technology professionals working in the White House. Lander’s behavior undermines efforts to build a diverse, effective, high-morale workforce, because toxic leadership can be especially harmful to people traditionally excluded from positions of power in science and science policy: women, Black, Indigenous and people of color.

A diverse scientific and science policy workforce not only reflects the diversity of our country, but it creates better science, bringing together a wide range of skills, perspective and talents necessary to make real progress on every scientific issue. Lander’s departure is a signal to every federal agency that no leader can get away with abusing or mistreating the staff who work for them.

Scientists at federal agencies faced unprecedented political interference during the Trump administration. We need to rebuild these agencies and support the scientists who work there. We need to encourage a new generation of scientists to take up the work of public service; and to do that, you need to ensure them a safe and collaborative working environment. You can’t use science and policy to build a safer, healthier, and more just country without paying attention to safety and justice within science and policy institutions.

The president and OSTP have championed a stronger commitment to scientific integrity, and central to that is the right of scientists and experts to do their work without fear of bullying or retaliation. A recommitment to that principle of justly and equitably managing scientific programs is all the more important now at OSTP. All of us benefit from the government’s scientific research and science-based policies, and we need to make sure that scientists working on our behalf can do their best work.

Let’s not pretend that this is a problem isolated to a single leader. Or that OSTP is the only place in our science enterprise that problems of bullying, aggressive behavior or mistreatment of staff, particularly women and scientists of color, has created a toxic culture. Every scientific organization has struggled with these issues, including my own. Every government agency, every university and research institute, every civil society organization, has encountered these problems. But the fact that toxic workplaces, and by association, toxic leaders are common makes it all the more urgent to stamp out workplace abuse and hold accountable leaders who abuse or mistreat their staff.

So, let’s take the resignation of the most senior science adviser in our federal government as an object lesson to hold each other to account. And to confront and change bullying behavior now, in each and every science institution.

Earlier this year, the White House issued a report reviewing federal scientific integrity policies; it’s time to get to work implementing those recommendations. A toxic work environment in federal scientific agencies is simply unacceptable.

Dr. Hotez is not only a highly respected scientist in his field and a leader in the biomedical community, he is also a frequent public spokesperson on issues concerning the pandemic. As he notes in his op-ed, attacks on science and scientists have gotten worse and worse during the pandemic for him and his colleagues. And those attacks, fueled by social media, aren’t just from shadowy corners of the Internet or disgruntled fringe actors. Those are bad enough. Today, attacks on scientists working to save lives and get us through this pandemic are coming from elected representatives and public figures:  Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida; Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia; Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky; and many others.

Dr. Hotez notes that some of the attacks on him are overtly anti-Semitic. Dr. Fauci has been compared to Hitler. These scientists have been accused of “crimes against humanity” for their work to develop and encourage the use of life-saving vaccines and other protective measures. Many biomedical scientists have received a regular stream of threats, including death threats to themselves and their families, egged on by public figures, all because of their life-saving work.

A mounting problem

Climate scientists, perhaps you are saying “welcome to the club,” given that many of you have been targeted for years, as have many of those calling out dangerous pollution, racial injustice, and many other problems.  As a natural resource scientist, I was subjected to threats on occasion. But never at this level, and never with the encouragement of elected officials or the multiplier effect of social media.

In response to Dr. Hotez’s question, I first ask, “how can this possibly be acceptable behavior  in our society?”  If you walk up to me on the street and threaten me, it could be considered assault.  If you do it through the (snail) mail, it is a federal crime. So, how has this become a shoulder-shrugging norm that many scientists (and others, of course) are experiencing as part of daily life in America?

The Union of Concerned Scientists has, for over 50 years, called on scientists to speak out on critical issues, from the threat of nuclear weapons, to climate change, to fundamental rights in our democracy.  We regularly ask scientists to be more engaged in public life, debate and public policy issues. And many, many scientists and those who care about the role of science in our society have responded by speaking out as citizens and scientists. Sharing their skills and work. Taking on new perspectives and issues. As an organization, we at UCS defend not only their right to do so, but the important role they can and must play in our society.

We have done far less work with the biomedical community, but maybe it’s time we did. Science has a lot to contribute to our society and many, many people look to and depend on biomedicine and biotechnology for life-saving innovations every day. So, we do need to stand up for our colleagues in biomedicine.

We can’t have a functioning democracy if we allow those who threaten, intimidate and censor science to win.

Raising our voices

In answer to Dr. Hotez’s question, “who will defend the scientists?” I say we will. And there are a lot of people with us. Defending the right to share life-saving work with the world is everyone’s job. And that means we all need to join the fight, not just those in our organization but all of us throughout the country.  We have to hold the elected officials, political aspirants, public figures, loud voices, social media and other companies accountable. You can help at the ballot box, with your wallet, and by using your own voice. 

We must all say loudly, and as often as possible, that to threaten and intimidate with violent speech is not “free speech,” it is a crime.  It must be considered unacceptable and disqualifying for any public position. 

We all must call on our universities and research institutions to stand up for their staff scientists when they are attacked. If you live in a university community, or are an alum, or perhaps involved in other ways, you can emphasize the importance for them of pushing back on violent rhetoric.

Elected officials also need to hear loud and clear that this kind of attack is way out of bounds. These officials don’t just represent one part of their constituencies. They represent all of us. Opinions may differ. But violent intimidation never has a place in democratic society–especially from those who claim to represent us. Those companies that  tacitly or financially support this kind of behavior don’t deserve our business.

We rely on scientists like Dr. Peter Hotez to do a tremendously difficult, complex job that saves lives around the world. They should be able to rely on us to have their backs.

1. Preventing political meddling in science must be the goal

Some will tell you that the concept of scientific integrity is vague. Not so. The recent Scientific Integrity Fast-Track Action Committee report released by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy described it this way, “Scientific integrity aims to make sure that science is conducted, managed, communicated, and used in ways that preserve its accuracy and objectivity and protect it from suppression, manipulation, and inappropriate influence—including political interference.”

How does the government accomplish that? In part, through the implementation of strong scientific integrity policies in federal agencies. According to our recommendations for the incoming administration in 2021, “Principles of scientific integrity begin with a commitment to independent science. This commitment must encompass processes such as peer review and conflict-of-interest disclosure; transparent decisionmaking, including public access to government science and its use in policymaking; and scientific free speech, especially the right of government scientists to share research, express their personal views, and report abuses without fear of retaliation. These tenets must be explicit in policies, promoted by agency leaders, and valued in agency culture.” 

2. Federal agencies’ self-reviews were insufficient

Fortunately, many of our recommendations regarding scientific integrity were directly adopted by the Biden-Harris Administration, particularly through the Presidential Memorandum issued one year ago this week.  That Memorandum created the Scientific Integrity Fast-Track Action Committee (SI Committee) which reported in early January 2022. That’s real progress to restore science in public policy. 

The SI committee was made up of federal agency officials responsible for implementing scientific integrity policies.  Perhaps not surprisingly, the report found, “Existing agency policies are responsive to the principles and guidance in previous Executive actions. All major science agencies, and a number of others, have scientific integrity policies that address most if not all of the guidance articulated in Memoranda issued by the President and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in 2009 and 2010, respectively.”  In other words, self-review found that agencies were doing a good job.  On the other hand, as highlighted in the figure below, our independent review (notably conducted before the Biden-Harris Administration took office!) found that while some agencies had good policies in place, such as NOAA and EPA, but many did not, such as Transportation and Agriculture.  And no agencies were strong across all ten criteria we considered. 

3. The report did highlight some big issues!

To its great credit, and hopefully leading to real progress on scientific integrity, the SI committee also found some critical concerns need to be addressed.  To wit:

“Agencies need to strengthen scientific integrity policies to deter undue influence in the conduct, management, communication, and use of science. Although violations of scientific integrity are small in number compared to the magnitude of the Federal Government’s scientific enterprise, they can have an outsized, detrimental impact on decision-making and public trust in science.

“Violations involving high-level officials are the most problematic and difficult to address. Implementation and enforcement of scientific integrity policies take place at the agency level, meaning senior agency leaders, including political appointees, can either enable or undermine these policies.

“Further action is needed. Concerted efforts are needed to establish and maintain a culture of scientific integrity across all individuals and agencies that conduct, manage, communicate, and make use of science. A strong organizational culture of scientific integrity is a necessary foundation to reduce the potential for wrongdoing, protect against inappropriate influence, reinforce agency missions and goals, and ensure equitable delivery of Federal Government programs.”

I fully agree.  It might seem that establishing policies and strengthening agency culture through training and review are straightforward, but they still require a lot of work. Holding senior leadership–including political appointees– accountable is really challenging but must be addressed. In the foreword to the report, penned by the leadership of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, it states: “Violations of scientific integrity should be considered on par with violations of government ethics, with comparable consequence.”  I think there may be a path forward here.  Political appointees and other senior managers might not feel that a scientific integrity violation is too big a deal, but I suspect they don’t want to be labelled unethical!  And the system to deal with ethics rules in general is far more developed.  But putting that into place will take a lot of effort.

4. There is still a long way to go on equity and justice issues

The report makes a nod to “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility”.  It is really important that the committee recognized the importance of scientific integrity policy to equity and justice, even though they didn’t go very far into these issues.  But the need to equitably deliver federal programs to underserved and marginalized communities is noted, as well as the importance of ensuring protection for scientists from diverse backgrounds. 

Scientific integrity policies should be a vehicle for ensuring that community organizations, particularly those including Black, Indigenous, Latinx and communities of color who have been historically marginalized or ignored, can have access to better information from scientists to improve public health, safety and their environment.  Many of these communities face the cumulative impacts of a multitude of stressors including pollution, poor transportation, poor health care, economic challenges, and many more.  They need to hear from scientists, not politically manipulated messages, so communities can fight for themselves with the science in hand to support their efforts.   And they need to have access to scientists who understand their issues and challenges.  Scientific integrity policies aimed at preventing political manipulation, suppression, or censorship of information is an important part of this challenge. 

5. Implementation and enforcement are key

In some sense, really good policy is only as effective as its implementation and enforcement.  A statement of intent is necessary but not sufficient.  And the SI committee report has not yet dealt with the implementation and enforcement of policy. It’s a tough challenge. Politically appointed staff are at the top of nearly all federal agencies and they are often the ones who set direction on key issues. Even well-intended staff members often have an understandable tendency to want the science to support policy choices – even when the evidence is to the contrary.  This happens in every administration. If it didn’t then the need for strong enforceable policies would be less urgent. So, who can hold leadership to account?  Who can hold high-level leaders to account – to listen to, but not manipulate the science? 

Government professionals and political appointees are held to account for ethics violations such as misuse of funds, conflicts of interest and the like – not perfectly, but the system is strong. Just recall the departure of many high-level officials in the last administration for ethical lapses. Scientific integrity needs to be on a par with misuse of government resources. After all, government science is a critical, costly and vital resource. For conflicts of interest, agency general counsels have significant responsibility.  Agency managers do too, through the performance management system. And the public record of the administration as a whole is at risk when ethics violations occur.  The same must be true for manipulation or suppression of scientific evidence.  And the mechanisms are the same, transparency, adequate reporting, training and consequences for violations up to an including dismissal from the government. In other words, we have applied these accountability methods in other areas, so now is the time to do the same for scientific integrity.

Over the coming months, the next steps in the process of strengthening scientific integrity in government will be rolled out by the Office of Science and Technology Policy.  Hopefully, as part of that effort, input from the public and from organizations such as UCS will become a part of the effort. And Congress has work to do too. Hopefully they will work swiftly to advance the Scientific Integrity Act to ensure that protections will be in place no matter who is in the White House. After all, UCS has worked on scientific integrity policy for more than 15 years.  We and our supporters have more to contribute if the government is willing to listen. 

Watch this space.  Scientific integrity is on the move and it is high time too. 

The session was very fortunate to have Congressman Paul Tonko (D. – NY) as one of the panelists.  I thought many who could not attend the meeting would be interested in what Rep. Tonko had to say.  Below, with his permission, are his remarks, slightly edited for length:  

“Thank you to the Union of Concerned Scientists and the American Geophysical Union for inviting me to visit with you all.  It seems impossible to imagine modern society without publicly funded science. Our nation’s scientific agencies perform an invaluable function for the American people, and we’ve attracted some of the best and brightest scientific minds in the world. Their research has become the foundation for our most important work at all levels of government to protect public health, our environment, our economy, and so much more.

“Because this research is so powerful, political advocates and other special interests have long tried to influence, distort, or bury it when it doesn’t fit their views or serve their purpose. Through both Democratic and Republican administrations, I have seen this important work be thrown into the partisan fray where it does not belong. But, without question, the previous administration significantly raised the stakes.

“This is exactly why we need scientific integrity policies. The public we serve should know that our decisions and the policies that affect their lives are based on the best available information, regardless of political power or who is in the Oval Office.  As Chair of the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, and long-time member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Technology, I have made it one of my top priorities to right the ship of America’s science policy.

“As part of that broad effort, I was proud to reintroduce the bipartisan Scientific Integrity Act in February of this year, and as of today it has racked up more than 175 cosponsors. This legislation establishes consistent scientific integrity policies across all agencies so scientists, members of Congress, and the American people can put our faith in federal research findings.

“More than 20 federal agencies have some form of scientific integrity policy today, but standards remain inconsistent. Some agencies lack these policies entirely, while others have strong policies and processes but little or no training for staff to use them. Still others, including EPA, have robust scientific integrity standards and strong enforcement, showing the positive impact that these policies can have for the American people.

“I know that the science leaders and members of AGU are keenly aware that America is facing unprecedented challenges in the form of a rapidly changing climate, environmental contamination, and countless other concerns that threaten our public health, national security, and general welfare.

“As we witnessed this weekend, Americans are living, and dying, in the path of unprecedented flooding, raging wildfires, and battering storms driven by Earth’s changing climate. It falls to us to set aside past disagreements and rise together to meet this challenge.

“We agree that climate change is real. We agree humans are driving it. We agree that we need to build solutions that meet the scale and urgency of the crisis we face. I am working in open and collaborative fashion to build legislation toward this end.

“When the Biden Administration’s Office of Science and Technology Policy releases their upcoming Scientific Integrity report, we intend to continue working in partnership with them and many of you participating in this panel. Specifically, we are working to shore up our oversight and enforcement language to ensure any violators of scientific integrity are held accountable and our publicly funded research is always made whole.

“I have been greatly encouraged by the Biden Administration’s early and forceful attention to the role of science in US policymaking and governing. Government-funded science is, after all, the product of political choices. For it to be sustained, we must leverage the momentum and take immediate action to establish strong scientific integrity policies as a standard across the federal government.

“I am looking forward to codifying scientific integrity policies in the remaining time we have in the 117^th Congress so we can, finally, solidify public trust that federal scientific research is never hidden or manipulated.

“I want to thank everyone again for the invitation to join with you. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me and my office if there is anything we can do to assist you.”

– Congressman Paul Tonko

The moral of the story is that things are happening in Washington in the administration and on the Hill. The path is complex, difficult, and uncertain.  But, hey, as scientists we are used to that!  And we don’t give up. With leaders like Paul Tonko, we know we have a real chance at progress. 

This is a graphic example of political interference in the ability of scientists to speak freely about their work. The Center for Science and Democracy at UCS has long advocated for scientific integrity policies at the federal level to ensure scientists can speak free from political interference.  We have also been working to engage the broader science community in the battle over voting rights and fair representation.

And now, thanks to UF, we have a graphic example at the state level linking these two issues together.  

University scrambles to cover its tracks

At first UF said the governor had nothing to do with it. But the governor does appoint six members of the UF Board of Trustees—and the board chair is one of DeSantis’ most prolific fundraisers and strongest supporters.

Then the University claimed that the problem was that the faculty members would be compensated for their outside work, as if that were unusual. As a former University of New Hampshire Dean, I can assure you that it is not at all unusual for faculty to be compensated for external work and that there are clear rules for addressing conflicts of interest. And it has nothing to do with public funding of research as the UF administration implies. Research is funded from a wide range of sources. Most importantly, research funding must be to gain understanding of the processes at play, not to obtain any particular, politically acceptable answer. 

Now, backpedalling, UF says the faculty members can testify if they are not paid, without any rationale. Why shouldn’t they be compensated by the plaintiffs for testifying on their work? The University is still far from acknowledging and committing to academic freedom, scientific integrity, and shielding scientists from political censorship.  

The voting rights lawsuit in question

The issue at stake here? The bill supported by the DeSantis administration that restricts voting rights by curtailing opportunities for mail in voting, reducing voting hours, and making it illegal to provide food and water to people waiting in line to vote. 

In the 2020 election, the Florida election was problem free. Nevertheless, Trump, DeSantis, and others have constantly questioned the security of the election, providing them with a bogus excuse enabling them to claim that their repressive, racist voter restriction laws are needed to “reassure” voters about election security. 

So who are these faculty members from UF whose testimony is so dangerous to the case of those supporting voting restrictions? Political science professors Daniel A. Smith, Michael McDonald, and Sharon Wright Austin study how election laws shape political participation, voter turnout, and African-American political behavior respectively. In other words, they research the very topics that are foremost in the voter restricting legislation being challenged. Perhaps the results of their research don’t support the governor’s measures, but that is the nature of scientific inquiry—evidence is the basis for the results, not political positioning. 

We can’t accept state censorship of science

Scientists everywhere should be outraged at this attempt to suppress science in this public policy debate. The very idea that state university scientists should only be allowed talk about research that the current state government believes support its political positions should be anathema. Imagine the issues that could be affected. What are the impacts of climate change at a local level?  How are state regulations benefiting or harming certain communities? What public health and safety threats are likely emerging? Are workers, communities, children, the elderly at risk? Are natural resources well managed? 

Literally thousands of issues that scientists at public universities work on might be censored, proscribed, or stifled if we don’t defend academic freedom and scientific integrity. 

Citizens everywhere should be outraged that our voting rules are being made without careful consideration of the evidence of what works to protect the right to vote. That evidence comes from scientists like Drs. Smith, McDonald, and Wright Austin. We have to insist that our democratic rules are based on facts and evidence, not political ideology or manipulating the rules and the narrative to maintain power. 

This morning, the scientists published a response to the university’s actions. “As public employees, each of us has sworn an oath to “support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida,” they stated. “Our oath binds us to the people of Florida, not the politicians in the government.”

Voting rules, drawing representative districts for state and federal representation, election processes – there is extensive, solid evidence about what strengthens fair representation and thereby democracy. And there is also evidence on actions that weaken our democracy. 

Florida must not be allowed to get away with it. Because other states might follow, not just in political science, but in all fields of study. And that is a dangerous road that leads to the decline of our democracy. Steps toward government control and suppression of our academic institutions and freedom of speech must never be tolerated.

The deadline has been the same for over a hundred years. It doesn’t sneak up on members. But rather than do the work they were elected to do and come to a compromise agreement, political grandstanding rules the day. Under Republican party control and Democratic party control. Sometimes the barriers are in the House, sometimes in the Senate.

And so, to keep the government funded Congress passes short term “Continuing Resolutions” that extend the previous year’s spending plan into the new fiscal year that starts on October 1. So our constitutional democracy limps along. Sometimes, two, three, or more continuing resolutions are needed before an agreement is reached. Sometimes the government shuts down for hours, days, or even weeks as the political posturing goes on.

Let’s be clear. This is just about political posturing.

The spending bills exist. They contain both critically important funding and a myriad of tax breaks, special funding, and directions that individual members or congressional committees insert to satisfy special interests. The ostensible disagreement is not what to spend money on, or really even how much to spend.

There is no serious principled disagreement about whether the country should pay its bills and maintain its credit to borrow money (the self- inflicted and purposeless debt ceiling crisis).

It is mostly about pretending to want to spend less, or incur less debt, or object to specific spending items. Somewhere, with some voters and political donors, that’s the cold and cynical political play.

There are real-world consequences for this political gameplaying – including for science and scientists

Continuing resolutions are bad enough. Just extending last year’s spending plan stifles innovation. New ideas get dropped or delayed. New grants. New data collection programs, and the application of new scientific knowledge to serve the public. Scientific programs that may be planned for the autumn get put on hold even when a critical field season is upon us; or a long-planned experiment is set to begin; or an international meeting, years in planning, is finally coming together. 

And that’s just one piece of the broader damage inflicted when the government shuts down and nearly all federal agencies get stuck in a holding pattern until their carefully prepared budgets are set by Congress. Every agency wastes a huge amount of time and effort in that holding pattern.

And even worse is when someone in Congress believes there is advantage in forcing the government to shut down, even for a day. All so some members can beat their chests and say, “I stopped the government. See my power.” As if there is not power and satisfaction in doing your damned job. 

At a time when federal science programs are trying to recover from the relentless attacks on science by the previous administration. a government shutdown is the last thing we need. We need to rebuild our federal science programs, not add more uncertainty. We need new scientists to step forward for public service, and shutdowns don’t help. 

A well-functioning constitutional democracy doesn’t shut down its government.  It evolves, improves, and adjusts its government as new information and priorities emerge.  We should all demand that our government function as our constitution designs. 

That means Congress must do its job and meet its deadlines.  It means parties need to find solutions not problems in political differences. It means that we need a government that is funded and functioning to protect the health, safety, and well-being of us all. 

It can be tempting to want to confront the messenger and correct the message. While there is a way to do this, if we truly want to combat disinformation, we need to look at the people and corporations funding and fueling it. We need to dig deeper. These disinformation campaign strategies are not the products of a corporate board room or individual companies. They were developed as a political strategy long ago, and adopted as a means to an end, pushing back against those campaigning for civil rights, labor rights, social justice, environmental justice, and the public interest rather than corporate interest.

Let’s play Political Jeopardy! 

And choose the category of “Disinformation Campaigns,” for all the marbles. 

Answer: On this day 50 years ago, at the request of the US Chamber of Commerce, a Virginia tobacco lobbyist and future Supreme Court Justice wrote a memorandum that was shared with the Chamber’s 100,000 members. That memorandum was a blueprint for “the survival of business and the free enterprise system” in the face of the civil rights, consumer safety, labor, and environmental gains made in the 1960s.

Question:  Who was Lewis F. Powell, Jr.?

Correct! In his manifesto, entitled “Attack on the American Free Enterprise System,” Powell urged corporate leaders to collectively bend government, the courts, the media, and academia to the will of corporations.

Answer: There was genuine fear among businessmen that capitalism needed to be defended from these public figures.

Question: Who were “the likes of Ralph Nader, Rachel Carson, and liberal academics?”

Yes! As Donald Cohen put it in his book Dismantling Democracy, Powell stoked this fear and called for a concerted campaign for business leaders to take greater control of academia, media, public messages, and government by any means necessary to defend “free enterprise.”

Answer: Powell viewed these institutions as the “most dynamic source” of the attack on business and free enterprise, especially due to “imbalance”.

Question: What is academia?

Correct! Powell held particular suspicion and ire for university faculties that were ”unbalanced.” He called for finding and funding free market scholars and supporting them on the public speaking circuit and in media. Powell encouraged business leaders to advocate for “diverse views” and concepts like “balance, fairness and truth” as he noted this messaging would be “difficult to resist, if properly presented…”

Organized disinformation

According to the Powell memo:

“Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.”

As Jane Mayer pointed out in her book Dark Money [p.87], Powell called for “an aggressive expansion of corporate legal and political power and, specifically, greater spending by corporate interests to influence political outcomes.” In Powell’s words, “… [P]olitical power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously (sic) cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination… [in] support of the enterprise system. Nor should there be reluctance to penalize those who oppose it.”

These efforts gave rise to “think tanks” like The Heritage Foundation, established in 1973, that sell predetermined ideology to the public and politicians, in direct opposition to the scientific goals of open, transparent, and scholarly research. They worked to denigrate established scholarly organizations like The Brookings Institution as “equally biased but on the liberal side (Mayer, p.81).”

The Cato Institute was also established shortly after a speech by Charles Koch modeled on the Powell Memo, followed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, State Policy Network, and in 2003, the first of Koch’s bi-annual donor summits. These summits, alongside the tri-annual Council for National Policy meetings, have served as critical umbrella groups and foundational infrastructure for the business community to take heed of Powell’s clarion call.

Origins of the playbook

These are the leading organizations that pioneered what my colleagues and I call the “Disinformation Playbook,” tactics used again and again to halt government public health protections, confuse the public, and dominate the public narrative. They have pushed anti-science disinformation campaigns across the policy landscape on issues ranging from climate science and public health and safety, to the current battle over voting rights and political representation. Again and again, we have seen the same actors damaging the integrity of science and the role of scientists in policymaking, whether it is fossil fuel lobbyists promoting public confusion over climate science, ALEC’s “industry-friendly” model legislation, or Heritage Action’s “toolkit” for promoting the myth of voter fraud and enacting voting rights restrictions.

According to Mayer in Dark Money [p.74-76]. “… it was Powell’s memo that electrified the Right, prompting a new breed of wealthy ultraconservatives to weaponize their philanthropic giving in order to fight a multifront war of influence over American political thought.” It inspired “ philanthropists” like Richard Scaife, Joseph Coors, and Charles Koch to pour money into building up the capacity and infrastructure as Powell directed.

The Powell Memo is one of the most influential policy documents in US history and yet, hardly anyone knows about it.

What has this to do with science? Echoing the words of my colleague Dr. Michael Latner, “Where democracy is strong, science is elevated and respected, because both share fundamental principles: respect for evidence, a commitment to openness and transparency, and not just tolerance but a hunger for opposing views.”

Yes, our legislators have played a crucial role in enabling and even disseminating disinformation, including on climate change, the pandemic, and racial justice. But remember that behind each of them is a highly coordinated, fully integrated, and insanely well-funded network of financial interests. While we cannot outspend them, we CAN out-organize them. And it starts with exposing these players and taking action to protect our democratic institutions.

Thanks for playing Political Jeopardy! If you’re wondering what you can do about disinformation, visit our resource page for real information.

My colleagues Lindsey Berger and Michael Latner contributed to this post.

Science communication

I was first up in the first session on communication. In my two minutes I told OSTP, “Agencies should not be scared of scientists speaking up! Scientists should be encouraged (not just allowed) to communicate directly to the public, including on social media.

“The weight of evidence must be the basis for decisions. But what is included in that evidence? Federal scientists need to think more broadly and not be trapped into only considering designed experiments or surveys. Community members are experts in their own right and their lived experiences are critical data. To confront problems of equity and justice, community data must be given full weight and openly communicated by agencies.  

“The Union of Concerned Scientists and many other national and grassroots organizations have made recommendations for many years on trust building, scientific integrity and science communication. There is a great degree of alignment in recommended changes to better serve the public interest in policy decisions, rather than political or industry interests. OSTP should use civil society recommendations to guide all agencies to implement not only scientific integrity policies, but better communication, transparency and science-based decision making practices that are just, equitable, and responsive to public interests.”

Equity for communities

My colleague Anita Desikan, in her testimony during the session on the importance of community-scientist partnerships said, “For over 40 years, environmental justice research has shown that underserved communities face enormous health burdens from exposure to pollution, toxic chemicals, and other environmental stressors. Heavily impacted, underserved communities are often marginalized in both federal scientific work and public policies. When community level impacts are not fully incorporated into scientific analyses, the result is a continuation of inequity and injustice.

“Therefore, federal agencies should take a hard look at their scientific processes to ensure that they are fully, and from the very beginning, incorporating equity and justice into their framework. It is not enough for federal agencies to simply carry out data collection efforts on health disparities, they must ensure that all processes guiding the science are robust, community-focused, and free from political interference. Agencies should develop protocols that allow community input throughout the research process, and allow enough time for communities to comment on these processes.

“Community science (also called citizen science) is one promising way forward. Because community science allows community members to exert a high degree of control over research, focuses primarily on addressing community concerns, and forms a strong collaborative process between scientists and community members, it has great potential to serve as an important tool that federal agencies can employ to help meaningfully engage with underserved communities. Agencies should develop clear guidelines on how to encourage innovative community science projects, provide standards and tools for communities to best inform the process, and help agencies determine how and when to use and prioritize community science to support regulatory decision making.”

Scientific integrity training

Jacob Carter emphasized in the science and education session that, “Scientific integrity training will be especially important as new federal scientific experts are hired into agencies replacing the thousands lost during the past four years. When thinking about ways to strengthen scientific integrity trainings, the task force should consider that many new hires will be early-career scientists who may not be well versed on the principles of scientific integrity in the context of federal agency process–and these individuals also will likely be aware of the unprecedented frequency of attacks on science that occurred during the past four years. Therefore, scientific integrity trainings will not only be essential for educating scientists on their rights and protections, but to show new hires that federal agencies prioritize a workplace culture that respects scientists and the work they do. Agencies also must recruit a diverse pool of early career scientists in their rebuilding efforts. This commitment to diversity should be made explicit in these efforts, such as EPA’s plan to hire 1000 new staff by next May. 

“All federal employees should receive periodic, comprehensive training on scientific integrity: what it is, how it manifests in day-to-day work, and what violations actually look like. These trainings are important for employees who use science to a significant degree in their work, but also equally important for political appointees. Scientific integrity officials and federal scientists should receive training to identify and report discrimination, harassment, or bullying within their professional environment.” 

Enforceable policies

Taryn MacKinney in the use of scientific information session said, “You’ve heard excellent policy ideas today, but all of them are for naught without consistent enforcement and remediation. It’s particularly problematic when agencies encourage employees to report violations, but then can’t or don’t punish violators and reverse harms. These gaps weaken federal science, and prevent science-based decisions from helping those who need them most. We urge OSTP to consider that all federal agency employees [and the public] must know what constitutes a violation, and how to report it—and agencies must establish inviolable safeguards to protect these employees from retaliation. Agencies must have the power to conduct speedy investigations and enforce appropriate penalties for violators. Violators must face consequences strong enough to deter transgressions in the future and establish a culture of scientific integrity. This must also apply to political officials, no matter their rank.  When policies lack the teeth of enforcement, bad actors in our government take advantage. And those harmed most by weak protections for federal science are people of color; low-income, Indigenous, and immigrant communities; and children.”

Independent science

And Genna Reed concluded that, “Independent science​—that is, science free of political, ideological, or financial influence—helps our government make informed decisions to protect public health and safety, and enhances public trust. However, conflicts of interest have endangered independent science and its use in decision making. These conflicts can undermine public trust, weaken civic participation, erode the credibility of individuals or entire fields of expertise, and ultimately harm people and our environment. Where federal policy decisions must be informed by scientific evidence, in addition to strong scientific integrity policies, we need qualified individuals who are unencumbered by conflicts of interest and able to make decisions that benefit the public. Thus, agencies must first define conflicts of interest. That means ensuring that taking public policy positions, receiving federal research grants, and being a member of a scientific association are explicitly not considered conflicts because they do not preclude an objective assessment of scientific information.

“Second, enforce ethics laws, and establish guidelines about conflicts that disqualify individuals from decision making authority or participating in science committees or peer reviews. Third, publicly disclose the conflicts of interests and recusal statements of all political officials and science committee members in a timely manner, in accordance with specific disclosure deadlines. And, finally, require that all scientific leadership positions are filled with people with relevant training or experience and without real or perceived conflicts of interest. With OSTP’s leadership and guidance, agencies will be better able to clarify, make public, and consistently abide by practices that prevent conflicts of interest in science-based decision making.”

A better process

We have made these and many more recommendations for how this and any other administration can and must improve the process by which independent science informs policy making. It is exciting for us science and democracy nerds to work with an administration that seems to take so many of our long standing recommendations to heart.

But the listening sessions raised some other points that should be considered by this important White House office. The notice given for the listening sessions was about two weeks. Registration was required for all these sessions and they were all held during normal working hours. Once registered, those who wished to speak could log into the session, but were not given a specific time when they would be called during the two-hour session. For us at UCS, we adapted to the short notice and sessions during the working day with potentially up to a two-hour wait online to speak. But these barriers made the sessions inaccessible for many community activists, and particularly those from marginalized communities who have one (or more!) full-time day jobs. And for those who weren’t able to join, the recorded sessions still haven’t been posted online, nor has OSTP made public meeting participant rosters or meeting minutes.

Scientific integrity might seem like a wonky technical issue, but it has far reaching effects and we need a diversity of perspectives at the table in order to get it right. In the future, more accessible sessions for those outside the DC area are important. 

The next step in the OSTP process is to develop a comprehensive review of existing scientific integrity policies and practices in line with the President’s memorandum of January 27^th, 2021. We hope and expect that review will be released in the autumn with another, longer opportunity for public comment. Thanks to all of my colleagues and everyone else who were able to participate in the listening sessions, or to make comments in writing to OSTP on scientific integrity. 

I have had the privilege of working with UCS Senior Fellow and Cal Poly Professor of Political Science, for the past three years, learning from him about the science of democracy.  Here are a few of the things I learned:

The science of democracy is data-based

It is often said that free and fair elections are at the core of democracy.  But as long as the actual process of voting is subject to political restrictions, both freedom and fairness are compromised. Instead, there are good objective scientific analyses that can and should guide the voting process (and indeed how to achieve fairer representation of voters by elected officials). And it is possible to measure voter access and opportunity quantitatively to improve both freedom and fairness.

Political actors. Unfortunately, many political actors would rather not use the scientific information and objective analysis because their goals are not freedom and fairness—but political advantage and power hoarding. Right now there are more than 300 bills (and counting) in state legislatures that are designed to further restrict the opportunity to vote. They are based on the deceitful, politically fabricated need to reassure voters that the elections are secure. This the punchline of a lie-fueled campaign, by the self-same proposers of these bills, to cast doubt on fair and secure elections, despite all evidence to the contrary. In other words, they manufactured a problem that doesn’t exist and now are proposing to fix it.

Settling for “politics as usual” is undemocratic

When people say nothing can be done because that’s politics as usual, in reality that’s an acceptance of huge disenfranchisement. Black, Indigenous and other communities of color, as well as poorer citizens are subjected to higher and higher barriers to voting and are represented by fewer and fewer districts. In other words, the system works as intended by those seeking to hold on to power rather than truly represent the electorate! Politically constructed barriers are deliberately stripping away the rights of voters in targeted communities.

In every election cycle, huge efforts are made to overcome barriers to voting and get out the vote. Voter registration and voting drives even in communities that are targeted by suppression efforts can be successful and turnout goes up in spite of the barriers. And the next time around, the barriers get higher.

Ending politically motivated voter suppression would require that systemic change.  Rather than working to maintain power, voting systems should embrace the goal of fairer and robust representation of all of the electorate.  And the science of democracy is the guide.

Science and democracy are intertwined

If the science of democracy was really used to design our voting and representation process, there are three results that are almost guaranteed: 1) barriers would come down and voter turnout would increase dramatically, more in line with what other democracies experience rather than the low participation rates we see in the US; 2) the designation of  swing states would change and safe districts for one party or another would no longer be rigged to preserve the status quo of who is in power year after year; and 3) elected officials would have to be far more responsive to all of their constituents, not just a few that had ease of access and could be counted on to support the safe seats in the legislature.

Voting rights are not just a matter of fairness. There are real consequences to the suppression of those rights and the public policies that are enacted when some of our voters are systematically excluded from the process. Public health and safety outcomes in those same communities are worse. Environmental protections are weaker or non-existent and environmental justice is not achieved. Systemic racism pervades almost all that the government does when voters are suppressed – because elected officials do not have to address the needs of these communities to maintain their power.

As scientists, we should advocate loud and long for using science to solve societal challenges. And as scientists we depend on a functioning democracy to shape our society and to have a welcoming place to do our work. In the last four years we saw the consequences of the erosion of constitutional democracy for science. We were sidelined from addressing problems for which we know we can contribute to the betterment of the country. But it was science and a functioning government that is pulling us through the pandemic. And science and a responsive functioning government that will be needed to address climate change, racial justice and equity, and a just transition to a fairer economy. It all starts with the fundamental right to vote. This is a problem that science and scientists can help.

Scientists can’t stand aside from the battle for democratic reform

If we want to listen to the science, what can we do? Is it hopeless to fight politics as usual? No! There are key pieces of the puzzle that we can put together to strengthen and reshape a truly free and fair democracy right now.

There are bills in Congress that take a big step forward in stopping voter suppression. The For the People Act. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. The Washington, DC Admission Act. If enacted, those trying to suppress the vote would be on the defensive.

Get active scientists!

And we can’t just wait for the federal process to work.  Elections are under state and local control. With the new Census, states will be drawing new congressional districts.  The state and local officials that have a big say in the voting process need to feel the pressure of their constituents call on them to use the science of democracy to draw district lines for fairer representation, not to unfairly hold onto power for one party or another.

Across the country people are speaking out for democracy reform movement!  Science and all of our society depends upon a stronger, fairer democracy.

These egregious actions to suppress the vote are being imposed despite all of the evidence from the most recent Georgia election that no voter fraud was occurring, that voter turnout improved, and that participation in democracy was enhanced. The Brennan Center for Justice catalogued voter suppression actions that are underway in 43 of our 50 states. The Georgia legislation is extreme but not unusual in this season of undermining our democracy. And for the state government of Georgia, that seems to be a problem. Because if you make it easier to vote, people do. And voters want to elect officials who will actually serve the wider electorate. Somehow actually working for all the people, not just your white, wealthier friends, seems to be anathema to many elected officials in Georgia and far too many other states.

Why is this a science issue? Because the science of democracy helps us understand what works in breaking down barriers to voting. Because the science also tells us that communities whose votes are suppressed suffer policy consequences of weaker public health and safety protections, poor health and more environmental damage. And the science tells us that the very measures that Georgia passed into law and other states are rushing to put in place, work as intended (but not as described by Gov. Kemp!) in suppressing Black voters, Latinx voters, Indigenous voters, and other voters from marginalized communities. They are inherently racist and work to maintain the status quo. We know this from the data and scientific analysis.

Voter suppression efforts across the country will be challenged in court undoubtedly, and hopefully, science will help the courts to turn them back. Congress is trying to strengthen voting rights too via the For the People Act (which passed the House and is in the Senate) and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. The Union of Concerned Scientists supports these efforts to strengthen voting rights and stop voters suppression efforts like those in Georgia. Will you help?

Bipartisan agreement bodes well for action on some of the steps I and other witnesses raised:

1. Pass the Scientific Integrity Act
2. Increase fellowship opportunities
3. Strengthen recruitment, particularly from a more diverse group of those early in their STEM careers
4. More effectively use the tools that government has available (direct hire authority, student loan forgiveness, increased compensation)
5. Reform procedures and practices for hiring, mentoring, recruitment, and flexibility in positions
6. Train science program leaders on effective management of a more diverse workforce

Now it is up to the administration, Congress and the science community to make things happen. The administration needs to put in place the procedures and practices to address this critical need.  Congress needs to pass legislation and appropriate funds to rebuild science agencies after four devastating years on top of decades of decline. And the science community and the public need to hold our government to account and call for making things happen.

Here at UCS we will be calling for your support as we keep the pressure on for action.  All of the things that we stand for as an organization depend on a strong federal science enterprise. We cannot simply rebuild the federal agencies of the past, we must strengthen, modernize, and diversify our scientific agencies so they are well positioned to tackle our current and future challenges.  I hope you are with us.

What I told Congress:

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, and I am the Director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

My experience spans more than 30 years in government service, academia, private sector consulting, and nonprofit leadership.

Why Federal Science Matters

Federal scientists are on the frontlines of our nation’s capability to respond to society’s needs, from forecasting natural disasters to natural resource management and responding to pandemics.

Federally funded basic research that enables scientific discovery and innovation is critical to economic growth, employment, and sustainable development.

All science-based agencies, from the Defense Department to NASA to the Department of Agriculture and Commerce depend on a strong, continuously renewed scientific workforce.

Scientific Capacity Declines in Federal Agencies

The last four years have seen a significant reduction in the scientific workforce at many federal agencies. Our report, The Federal Brain Drain, found that five of the seven agencies we analyzed collectively lost more than 1,000 scientific staff.

Few agencies fared worse than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Between 2016 and 2020, the EPA lost nearly 6% of its scientific workforce—more than 670 staff including in regional offices, especially in the West, Southwest, and Midwest.

For some agencies, growth stagnated. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) lost 187 scientific staff, a loss of 2.2% in the three years before the pandemic began.

We recognize that demography was part of the driving force of this loss. But the inflow of new talent was squeezed as well. Fellowships curtailed, recruitment stagnant.

Federal Scientists Survey Results

Morale matters too, for retention, recruitment and productivity. We tracked more than 190 instances of attacks on science during the Trump administration, far outnumbering previous administrations.

When we surveyed more than 4,000 federal scientists in 2018,  80% of respondents said they noticed workforce reductions and nearly 90% reported that these losses made it difficult to fulfill their missions.

And at the EPA, fewer than 15% of surveyed scientists reported their morale as excellent or good.

Scientific Integrity and Revitalizing the Federal Scientific Workforce

In January, the Biden administration issued a key memorandum on restoring trust at government agencies through scientific integrity and evidence-based policy making. An important step for restoring morale, but more is needed.  Representative Tonko has re-introduced the Scientific Integrity Act, which would codify in statute the prevention of political interference or manipulation of scientific evidence.

Policy Solutions

The administration and Congress need to rebuild and strengthen federal scientific capacity, diversify the scientific workforce, and revitalize the pipeline that brings early-career scientists into civil service.

Specifically:

1. Increasing fellowship programs such as the Presidential Management, STAR (science to achieve results), Sea Grant, and Oak Ridge programs, which bring new talent to agencies. New fellowships should be created that tackle other science-related issues, such as climate change or equity and environmental justice. To diversify the workforce, agencies must also ensure that recruitment is broader and compensation, resources, and benefits for fellows are sufficient for those with economic challenges, not just the privileged few.
2. Recruitment must reach new audiences and counteract the tendency for hiring managers to recruit from a known set of institutions again and again. Every effort should be made to recruit by hosting far more events at Historically Black, Hispanic, and Tribal Institutions. The administration must learn from the private and nonprofit sector about recruiting tools.  Job fairs and other techniques must target a wider array of institutions than in the past and account for historical disparities in recruitment and hiring. Agencies must learn to work effectively with institutions unaccustomed to steering students towards civil service.
3. Reaching scientific capacity quickly will require not only recruiting and hiring to fill vacancies, but also reengaging with those who have retired from federal service, to regain lost knowledge, experience, and expertise.
4. Federal agencies must train mid and senior level scientists in leadership of diverse staffs. Effective science leaders and mentors are not necessarily those who publish the most papers or have been in service the longest. These are learned skills critical for the effectiveness of any enterprise.
5. Young scientists today are used to changing jobs and career paths frequently, so the civil service must evolve accordingly. More extensively utilizing programs for rotating assignments, remote work, joint appointments and joint institutes increases career flexibility.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my views and I am happy to answer any questions.”

When I read the orders and memoranda I was shocked. I knew they were coming. I and my colleagues from all over the country have been working hard to advocate for better policy on all these issues, and fighting as hard as we can the abuses of the previous administration. I was shocked because of how responsive these orders were to our advocacy. Science advocates everywhere, take a bow! These actions weren’t hatched just by the smart people in the Biden transition team and in the new administration (but thank you thank you thank you). The actions were based on years of work by scientists and advocacy organizations across the country to develop, evaluate, and advocate for real action that will make a difference.

Some people have said to me, “But these are just orders from the president and the next president can overturn them.” That’s true, but….let’s remember that the president is instructing the entire government on how to do their work under their legal mandates. The president is saying to the millions of professionals who work in the government: when you work on your mandate to reduce air pollution, or conserve public lands and ocean resources, or implement public health and safety actions, and more, you will base your policy proposals on scientific evidence. You will ensure that your policies are designed to make real progress toward reducing racial injustice and inequity. You will incorporate the evidence on the changing climate and make decisions that mitigate emissions and help communities, particularly the most vulnerable, adapt to climate change impacts. You will let scientists speak without political interference.

So to our members, supporters, our great Science Network, and to all of our organizational partners who have worked so hard to make this happen, THANK YOU.

To be sure—there is more to be done! Don’t fold up the tent! We need to ensure that all of these actions are fully implemented. There will be bumps and mistakes along the way and we need to call them out, fix them and keep moving. There are other actions that are needed. We need clean transportation policies for passenger and freight vehicles, the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, not just an electric federal fleet. We need to make sure that the transition from our current fossil fuel-based economy to a green (and blue to include the vital role of the ocean) economy is a just transition. One that creates good jobs and benefits accessible to everyone and every community. We need a rebuilt federal workforce that is valued for its public service and is as diverse as America. And we need to constantly fight the political forces that would drag us backwards.

These first executive orders address huge challenges—the pandemic, climate change, racial justice, and economic uncertainty. Among these actions, President Biden also issued a critically important order on “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” which includes some provisions that have received much less attention than they warrant. They go to the heart of much of UCS’ work and advocacy.

Section 1 of the order is clear and inspiring:

“Policy. Our Nation has an abiding commitment to empower our workers and communities; promote and protect our public health and the environment; and conserve our national treasures and monuments, places that secure our national memory.  Where the Federal Government has failed to meet that commitment in the past, it must advance environmental justice.  In carrying out this charge, the Federal Government must be guided by the best science and be protected by processes that ensure the integrity of Federal decision-making.  It is, therefore, the policy of my Administration to listen to the science; to improve public health and protect our environment; to ensure access to clean air and water; to limit exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides; to hold polluters accountable, including those who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities; to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; to bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change; to restore and expand our national treasures and monuments; and to prioritize both environmental justice and the creation of the well-paying union jobs necessary to deliver on these goals.” (emphasis added)

Music to my ears. Listening to the science is not just about the pandemic, it is about serving the needs of the public. For protecting public health and safety in our communities. For worker safety.  For protections for all with justice and equity, particularly communities of color and low-income communities that have long suffered much of the burden of pollution and environmental harms. These are exactly the changes that UCS has been advocating for and will pay enormous dividends in improving public health and safety, with specific attention to ensuring those benefits are for all communities.

As ordered by our president, all agencies and departments in the Executive Branch must immediately review and address actions taken between January 20, 2017 and January 20,2021 that conflict with these policy goals. And suspend, revise, or rescind those found to be in conflict with the new president’s policy goals as soon as possible.

For example, these actions will include, but are not limited to:

• Reversing the climate- and health-harming rollback of methane emissions standards
• Redoing the fuel economy and emissions standards for cars and light trucks that were gutted under the last administration, while also moving forward with ambitious standards that will dramatically reduce emissions and increase transportation electrification in the future.
• Reconsidering rollbacks of energy efficiency standards
• Undoing attacks on mercury and air toxics standards for coal plants
• Reconsidering changes to the way costs and benefits are calculated
• Revoking the rule that limits the science that the EPA can use in rulemaking.
• Reestablishing the interagency working group on the “social cost of greenhouse gas emissions to determine the social benefits of limiting global warming as critical input to evaluating regulatory proposals, and requiring an interim SCC, SCN and SCM within 30 days which will be used until final values are published.
• Erasing the shortcutting of environmental reviews of federal projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Within 30 days agencies must submit a full list of actions from the last four years that will be considered for review and revision or cancellation within the next year.

(Measured) excitement at UCS

I danced around the room with my dogs at the push toward restoring NEPA analyses. Doing a thorough NEPA analysis, which the shortcuts held back, means that agencies must seek public input more extensive than just notice and public comment during the rulemaking process. And critically it means that alternatives to a proposed action must be considered and vetted with the public, with the full analysis available to anyone who wants to understand the ramifications of a particular policy action. That includes, now with the new order, considering the impacts of climate change and on environmental justice. We need these analyses and public discussion—they are a key part of decisionmaking in our constitutional democracy.

I am definitely not the only one at UCS who gets excited by these wonky, technical pronouncements.

My colleague Jonna Hamilton raised a glass to toast the drive to more ambitious fuel economy and emissions standards, saying it’s time to ensure that the auto companies make the next generation of vehicles that consumers want to drive.  Strong standards will help the transition to electric vehicles, which reduce emissions, no matter where they are charged.

Rachel Cleetus breathed a sigh of relief that the government will be restoring the use of the social cost of carbon (and the social cost of methane and the social cost of nitrous oxide) for regulatory purposes. And that the Council on Environmental Quality will be updating its guidance on the consideration of greenhouse gases for NEPA analyses. With 2020 ending the hottest decade on record globally, and bringing a record-breaking 22 extreme weather and climate related disasters in the US that killed at least 262 people and each cost more than a billion dollars, it’s high time we took the costs of climate change seriously!

And Gretchen Goldman, swinging her young sons in the air in joy, was thrilled to see that  revoking the limits on science was named as a top priority of the Biden administration! The so-called Transparency rule would do widespread damage to the EPA’s ability to use the best available science on everything from air pollution standards to pesticide regulation. Finding a way to get rid of this harmful rule will allow the EPA to fully carry out its mission of protecting public health and the environment.

This order does a lot more to revoke bad policies. It also calls on the Secretary of the Interior to review the national monuments with a view to restoring them to 2017 boundaries. It declares the environmental review of oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge inadequate, placing a moratorium on leasing. It revokes the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline because it is inconsistent with the economic and climate goals of the new administration. And part of those stated goals as laid out in the policy section of the order includes respecting the voices of the Indigenous communities whose lands, livelihoods, and culture were given short shrift in the permitting process to date.

Another less noticed, even wonkier, remarkable Day One action

Another Presidential Directive of critical importance to the mission and work of UCS is entitled “Modernizing Regulatory Review.” It calls for the Office of Management and Budget, through its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), to re-focus the role and content of reviews of regulations proposed by federal agencies.

The new process OIRA is tasked with designing and implementing in consultation with agencies across the government will:

• Reflect new developments in science
• Fully account for benefits of regulations that are difficult to quantify
• Take into account the distributional consequences of regulations to ensure they appropriately benefit, and not inappropriately burden, disadvantaged, vulnerable or marginalized communities
• Find ways for OIRA to work more proactively and effectively with agencies to obtain the benefits to the public that come with regulatory initiatives
• Improve efficiency, transparency, and inclusiveness in the interagency review process

For example, consider the review of the previous administration’s rules that would limit the science that the EPA can use as the basis for implementing public health protections. That rule requires that the underlying data of any study be publicly available to be fully considered by the agency. That would necessarily exclude studies that rely on confidential health information in most cases, or give those studies lower credence, not on the basis of their scientific merit, but because of an artificial barrier labeled as “transparency” concerns.  OIRA has reviewed both the proposed and final rules and deemed them not economically significant, despite the fact that they affect all of the work that EPA does. Under an improved review process, the rule would have never moved through the process because it will in fact overburden, yet again, vulnerable communities.

Though OIRA’s work is often behind the scenes and rarely fully acknowledged, the agency plays a critical role in either advancing or hindering the regulatory process. In order for the Biden administration to meet its goals on climate, the pandemic, racial justice, and economic recovery, that process has to become better and more effective.  OIRA involvement must add real value to the benefit of the public. It is heartening and remarkable that this directive is a Day One action of the new administration.

Toward real action

By no means do the first executive orders accomplish the huge tasks before this administration. But it is an extraordinarily good start.

Now these orders need to turn into real actions from top to bottom in the federal government and in partnership with state and tribal governments as well as internationally. None of the challenges we face will be solved without action at all levels.

Our excitement at UCS is tempered by the enormous amount of work that needs to turn this promising vision into a reality. We will make our voices heard to hold the administration and Congress to account.  Please join us in doing so.

So for me and my colleagues at UCS, Friday was a good day. President-elect Biden and Vice-President elect Harris made a big step toward their promise to “listen to the scientists.” They announced the science leadership for the new administration. A set of outstanding scientists. And just as important, they are elevating the role of the Presidential Science Advisor to the Cabinet level, something we have long advocated for. That means scientists will be at the table and in the room when key issues are discussed and decisions are made—something that has been sorely lacking in the outgoing Trump administration.

The President-elect named Dr. Eric Lander, Director of the Broad Institute at Harvard and MIT, to be the Presidential Science Advisor and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

The science of social justice

The incoming Biden-Harris administration has consistently focused on four key challenges; the pandemic, climate change, racial injustice, and rebuilding a fairer economy. So the appointment of a luminary social scientist, Dr. Alondra Nelson, President of the Social Science Research Council and Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ, as Deputy Director of OSTP is significant. Dr. Nelson’s work includes studies of race, injustice and the role of science and technology.

As we have recommended, science must play a role in the fight for racial and environmental justice. The science community has a lot of work to do to meet that challenge and we look to Dr. Nelson to lead that effort.

The power of diversity and expertise

President-elect Biden also named Drs. Frances Arnold of CalTech and Maria Zuber of MIT to co-chair the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), the first time the council will be led by women.

Dr. Francis Collins will remain the Director of the National Institute of Health. Kei Koizumi, most recently at AAAS and a veteran of the Obama administration, will serve as chief of staff at OSTP. Narda Jones will be the Director of Legislative Affairs.

These are all outstanding scientists and thought leaders. It is so refreshing to know that such an experienced and highly qualified team will lead the nation’s science enterprise. President-elect Biden has already written to Dr. Lander posing a set of key questions on how to harness the power of science and technology to meet the huge challenges the country is facing

The Union of Concerned Scientists applauds these appointments and the strong role that science will take in the incoming administration. We, and many in the science community are anxious to put the last four years of science being sidelined and politically manipulated behind us. Science can and should play a critical role in public policy. We at UCS stand ready and eager to work with the new science team in the White House.

When we are witness to the events of this week—and indeed the last four years—it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that those who support the role of science in American constitutional democracy must also defend and strengthen that democracy in order to achieve our aims. We, as the UCS community, can not stand by as our very democracy is attacked by President Trump, his henchmen in Congress, and his rioters attacking the Capitol.

There are many organizations working on civil rights and democracy reform. What UCS brings to the battle is a connection to the science of democracy, elections, and fair representation—and the critical importance of fair voting and broader representation to achieving virtually all of the policy reforms UCS advocates for across our issue areas. Our supporters, based on science as well as the urgent need for civil rights, advocate for the changes we need as a country to combat disinformation. Together we fight to institute policies that secure fairer representation, safer elections even in times of pandemic, and policies that serve the interests and needs of all of the public.

Make no mistake that we, as the voice for science, have a unique role and responsibility in the movement for a healthy democracy and fair representation. Just as science is needed to ensure that policies are effective, a healthy democracy is needed to ensure that they are fair—and the success of both hinge on people’s right to vote and fair representation. Simply put, we cannot realize the role of science and evidence for achieving a healthier and safer society until we can ensure our government is serving and accountable to the people.

Four people died during the violent invasion of our National Capitol incited by President Trump, encouraged by some elected officials in Congress, and fueled by false claims about our recent election and our constitutional democracy. Ostensibly, their criminal actions and those of the president were based on outright lies about the election, that it was somehow “stolen” from the president. Let’s not say “unsubstantiated” claims, because that implies they might be substantiated later. Let’s not say “lack of evidence” of voter fraud, because all of the exhaustively gathered investigative objective evidence shows that the vote was untainted by any fraud. These claims are pure fabrication.

And let’s not lose sight of the fact that the lies about voter fraud come from a long history of racism. These lies are squarely aimed at disenfranchising voters of color, under the unspoken and abhorrent premise that Black voters, Indigenous, Latinx voters, and other voters of color are second-class citizens who are unfit to participate in our democracy. Whose very votes are suspect.

The overwhelmingly white crowd of domestic terrorists that broke into the Capitol were surely aware of that fact. That’s why they were there. Because they couldn’t accept that Americans who don’t look like them have a right to an equal say in our constitutional government.  Some waved the disgraced Confederate battle flag, honoring past violent insurrection to maintain white supremacy. And many waved flags with President Trump’s name. After all, he incited this riot. He is their acknowledged leader in a campaign of racism and lies.

This is not the first or last time we will see dissent from angry white mobs (e.g., Charlottesville, the so-called anti-mask “demonstrations” in the past year, the plot to kidnap the Michigan governor). The response to Black protestors and protestors from Latinx, Indigenous, and other non-white communities calling for justice has always been violent. In contrast, the response to white mobs and rioters who seek to “take back” a country that was “taken” from them featured no police dogs, no rubber bullets, no water hoses.

A few (52) of the thousands of criminals were arrested on Wednesday. Others were gently helped down the steps by law enforcement officers. Others were happily smiling as officers took selfies with them. This was an event openly planned for weeks, but the response to the criminal behavior and violence was diametrically opposed to the law enforcement response to the peaceful, legal protests against racial violence last summer in Washington and around the country. By comparison, the assault on the Capitol was treated as a town picnic, despite the clear intention to disrupt the electoral process by force.

The actions of President Trump are cause for immediate removal from office by the 25^th Amendment or impeachment. To put it plainly, he incited a riot to overturn an election and hold power over the objection of the voters and the rules set out in the Constitution. Appointed members of his administration, from cabinet secretaries and their political staffs to ambassadors, should resign as a matter of conscience. The House and Senate members who enabled and supported this treason should be censured, and in some cases expelled. They all grossly violated their oath of office. The attack that we saw is not just an attack on a small subset of the country—it was not just an attack on D.C. or the Capitol Building—it was an attack on every inhabitant of this country.

The new administration of President Biden has a huge set of challenges ahead. Lost in the horror of violent attacks on the Capitol was the fact that nearly 4,000 people in the US died of COVID-19 that same day, a new daily record at the time. Systemic racism is still a malevolent force throughout our society. The global warming disaster is upon us. And our public health, safety, and environmental protections are frayed. We need to advocate for real change. That doesn’t mean transferring anger onto the new administration, but mustering technical and political support for the changes we need.

UCS and our supporters need to advocate for the democratic reforms that will improve elected representation of all people in this country. To further break down barriers to voting and overcome racist voter suppression tactics. We are working to fight racism and white supremacy in all our society and institutions, including our own. And we are advocating for policies that squarely attack environmental racism and inequity in our society.

We are one organization among many, but we do speak on behalf of many people who care deeply about the role of science and verifiable evidence in our society. The poisonous lies and enablers of sedition will remain even after Trump leaves office. Remember that those in Congress—including Senators Cruz, Hawley, and their sedition-supporting colleagues—will remain in power. The  disinformation campaigns to lie about our elections and government, or about the terrible consequence of climate change for that matter, aren’t going away unless we fight them.

The new president and Congress have the chance to begin to right many wrongs. But they need our strength to hold them to task. To hold them accountable for resetting the norms, actions, and policies of our government. As a constitutional democracy, we the people are not bystanders. Scientists can not be bystanders. Our voices, our ideas, our knowledge, and our constituency are all critical to the making the changes we need.

Over the past few weeks as the Biden-Harris administration has begun to form, I and many of my colleagues have been meeting with various federal government agency review teams. These are the people responsible for ensuring that the new administration has the information ready for the new government officials in each agency to set a strategic agenda. I can only describe it as a pleasure. We have been talking to knowledgeable dedicated people who want to listen to constituents. They are not dismissive. They are not dogmatic. But full of questions and hungry for information. In the four years of the Trump administration, I had exactly one meeting with an agency head (the EPA administrator) and it was basically an argument.

The incoming Biden-Harris administration has made clear commitments to listening to scientists, letting scientists inform the public, and making policy based on science. For years, this is just what UCS has been calling for—from all administrations. And it isn’t enough to just reverse the corruption of the last four years. We need to replace the damage with better forward-thinking policies and better government.

Four years of fighting back

The Center for Science and Democracy at UCS has worked hard on the process by which science informs decisions. We have fought the current administration’s efforts to impose restrictions on the science that agencies can consider in crafting public health and safety protections, under the guise of “greater transparency.” We have pushed back on changes to the way costs and benefits are evaluated that would give outsize weight to costs to industry and devalue health benefits to the public when making regulations to cut pollution. We have fought changes to how agencies obtain and utilize independent science advisory boards consisting of outside experts. And more. Sometimes we have won these battles, but many are not over as the courts have not yet spoken. But we have done all we could to ensure that the courts will hear our arguments about why these essentially political decisions sideline science in making policy.

There are other bad actions pending that we still need to fight even in the final stages of the Trump administration. They are accelerating leasing for oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, without adequate assessment of its impacts on indigenous peoples and fragile ecosystems. Rules are being finalized that ignore the scientific evidence of health impacts of fine particulate matter pollution and ozone. Changes to the implementation of the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are being pushed through that would greatly weaken conservation and habitat protections while ignoring the impacts of climate change. And more. The incoming Biden administration will need to address all of these problems. It will take time but the opportunity is not just to roll back the rollbacks, but to “build back better” as the President-elect says.

It’s time to rebuild our country and our democracy

So let’s have real transparency in rulemaking that serves the public interest with better and faster access to science and more opportunity for affected communities to voice their needs and concerns. Let’s talk about the real benefits that disadvantaged communities of color must have to protect basic health and safety after enduring years of environmental injustice, rather than letting industry off the hook for the toxic pollution that threatens lives. Let’s base rules on science and public need, so that we can achieve fair and equitable outcomes that directly address racial injustice rather than only protections for wealthy, white communities. And we have to tie together the challenges of climate change, social justice, and the transformation of our economy to support public health, safety, and sustainability for all.

To do all this, we need not just a strong federal workforce that needs to be rebuilt from the ravages of the Trump administration, but the opportunity for people across the country to contribute to rebuilding our country and our democracy. We need federal agency leadership to be truly representative focused on serving all the public. The Biden-Harris administration is well on the way to fulfilling this need, but we all must hold them to it. Not to punish but to participate the process.

This means scientists and other young professionals early in their careers should consider how they can engage in public service. How all of us can support the calls for social justice. How we can each push back on efforts to undermine democratic processes and institutions, from voting to redistricting and the census. It is not just the job of the Biden-Harris administration to “Build Back Better.” It is the job of America.

I am up for it. Are you?

From writing op-eds about the intersection of science and justice, to virtual debate watch parties, to training STEM students on voter registration, it has been inspiring to see how many people have stepped up to prove that science IS rising, and that science is an integral part of our democracy. Here is how students, scientists, and science supporters around the country chose to “rise and science” in 2020:

We mobilized

• Through the Science Rising TurboVote tool, we assisted more than 2200 people with voter registration and requesting a mail-in ballot.
• In close collaboration SACNAS, we created the Science Rising Challenge to increase STEM voter registration and turnout. This Challenge outlines key actions for participating in our democracy, including registering and making a plan to vote (if eligible) and guidance on how to organize or complete other nonpartisan civic engagement activities. More than 75 people completed multiple challenge activities.
• Jointly with Scholars Strategy Network, we created a 3-part faculty guide to student voting for faculty to integrate voter registration and civic engagement into their classrooms.

We strengthened the science advocacy movement

• Our network was made up of 21 coalition and organizing partners who contributed to strategies and ideas for resources, and shared tools and messaging on how to safely get out the vote
• With Sister, we published 9 advocacy stories by women in STEM, in order to amplify new voices and build the narrative around what science advocacy looks like.
• We raised the profile of the issue of increasing STEM student voter turnout. This was not an issue getting traction before Science Rising came on the scene. Sonia Zarate, president of SACNAS and a key partner for the Science Rising Challenge, even brought it up in her introductory remarks for their national conference:

“Although science is bipartisan, communities are facing very real disproportionate threats as a result of the denial of climate science, the dismantling of government institutions and policies that uphold scientific principles, and the outright attack on the identities that make up our membership. To put it bluntly, the future of STEM hangs in the balance of this election. Historically, STEM majors have been the least likely to vote. But that must stop right now. If you have the right to vote, it is your responsibility as a scientist to do so. With the election only two weeks away, we must each commit to make our voices heard through our votes, and if need be, through dissent.”

We supported people in engaging their communities and campuses

Through the Science Rising Challenge Fund, we funded 23 projects with more than $17,000 to support groups who share our mission of fighting for science, equity, and justice in our democracy leading up to the election. Here are just a few examples:

• March for Science NYC launched an online panel series and voter registration campaign that focused on local science policy issues.
• The Massachusetts Science Policy Network created a voter information toolkit for the City of Worcester, and printed voter information in English and Spanish to be distributed by local businesses.
• The Puerto Rico Science Policy Action Network (PR-SPAN) launched the initiative “Visibilidad y conCiencia de cara a las elecciones 2020” to bring visibility about the importance of science in emergency management, as well as its role in education, technology, agriculture, and Puerto Rico’s overall wellbeing.
• In coordination with the National Science Policy Network’s 2020 Election Initiative, more than 15 graduate students published op-eds about important science policy topics to raise awareness from local, state, and federal candidates leading up to the election.
• Overall, Science Rising supported and amplified 124 events and activities that mobilized students and science advocates around civic engagement efforts, and trained more than 450 individuals on voter registration and engagement tactics

Ultimately, Science Rising built power within the science advocacy movement—and the level of engagement from partners, supporters, STEM students, and the broader STEM community suggests that we drove home the narrative that participating in our democracy is critical for both scientists and science. During a tough election and an even tougher year, it was rewarding to see people rallying behind participating in our democracy, despite the obstacles.

What’s next?

Thanks to the support, energy, and ingenuity of our partners, grant recipients, participating organizations, and individuals around the country, we can confidently say we made valuable contributions to increasing STEM voter turnout and civic engagement within the science community in the 2020 election—and we’re proud of it!

We’re taking a pause to recharge after all that 2020 threw at us, and to reflect on what the future looks like for Science Rising. If you’d like to be part of that conversation, you can reach out to Melissa Varga at partnerships@sciencerising.org, or follow our updates on @SciRising on Twitter, or on our website.

In 2020, we were able to keep up the momentum and continue to build the culture of advocacy and civic engagement within the science community—but we still have a long way to go. I hope you’ll stick with us as we keep pushing for science, equity, and justice in our democracy not just in election years, but every year and in every community across the country.

This renewal and election of a new administration and Congress now provides us with an extraordinary opportunity for science and science-based decision-making to once again serve the public interest. And we must demand that the incoming administration and Congress deliver on that promise.

Science must again guide public policy

Unfortunately, over the last four years we have lost a lot of ground in securing fair, equitable, and scientifically justifiable policies that protect public health, safety, and our environment. This is due in large part to the Trump administration relentlessly sidelining science from public policymaking while allowing special interest influence to run virtually unconstrained.

The result has been an inability to effectively confront major crises and protect the public. A pandemic that rages uncontrolled because of political rhetoric to cover a bungled unscientific response. A flaring of the long-standing national injustice of systemic racism, exemplified by overt and unjustified police violence against Black, Indigenous, and communities of color, but also clearly visible in the disproportionate impacts of environmental hazards and the disparate impacts of COVID-19. And overall, an unfolding crisis of a warming climate caused by unchecked human environmental destruction in an unprepared world.

Now, a new administration led by President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris must step up to all these challenges. They will only be successful if science and the public interest are guiding principles for their public policy decisions. While blocking or reversing some of the Trump administration’s harmful anti-science actions and regulatory rollbacks are part of what is needed, just turning the clock back is sadly insufficient.

Rebuilding scientific capacity and science-based decision-making across the federal government

Over the coming months, President Biden must immediately begin work to rebuild the scientific capacity of federal agencies. Over the past four years, science programs across the government have been redirected, slashed, and mismanaged. To say that the scientific workforce is currently demoralized would be a sadly inadequate way to describe the current feelings among beleaguered agency staff.

Under the Trump administration, scientists have been routinely shut out of the policy process and many senior staff have departed and not been replaced, leaving a vacuum of expertise and leadership. To help address this, new administration and agency leadership needs to immediately reconfigure the very processes by which decisions are made.

As we move forward, leadership for federal science programs needs to be highly qualified, visionary, and part of the core teams that will build new agency strategic directions. Talented young scientists need to be actively recruited to public service. New ways to participate need to open up—not just standard civil service jobs, but new fellowships, rotating assignments, specialized contracting and granting (beyond the usual consulting contracts), joint science institutes, and more. Land Grant, Sea Grant, and Space Grant institutions need to be rebuilt and re-visioned as part of that effort. (How about Climate Grant? Justice Grant? Public Health Grant?) And pandemic-strapped universities across the country, especially minority-serving institutions, can and should be part of the solution.

The rules of engagement for scientists need to be revised, refreshed, and advanced. Scientific integrity policies are intended to ensure that political manipulation, censorship, or suppression of science and scientists are prevented. This should be a matter of law, not policy.

The public and policymakers at all levels of government need to hear directly from the experts. Not just in crisis situations (though that’s certainly the current situation we are in), but always. We should all want the best information we can get to shape public policies.

To help achieve this, the Biden administration should work with the new Congress to pass strong, comprehensive, and enforceable scientific integrity legislation early in the new term. President Biden should direct agencies to work with the White House to implement stronger policies and ensure every agency leader knows what they have to do. Accountability mechanisms and a strong role for Inspectors General should be re-established. Executive agencies should work with oversight committees in Congress.

Independent science advisory committees have and should bring expertise, new ideas, and quality control to the work of all science-based agencies across the government. When implemented properly they are extraordinarily cost effective—but not if you pack them with scientists with ties to regulated industries and deep conflicts of interest, as was done routinely during the Trump administration. Science advisory boards are an opportunity to be embraced, not a chore agencies must reluctantly perform.

President Biden should immediately create essential new science advisory committees across agencies, peopled by independent scientists from a range of perspectives that includes more diversity of all kinds—more gender diversity, more early career scientists, and more Black, Indigenous, and scientists of color must be appointed to advisory panels because we need new thinking from across society to confront the many challenges we face.

In the Biden administration, every federal agency must be part of the effort to advance racial justice and equity in society. Every policy enacted, implemented, and enforced; every grant program; every new effort of government to serve the people must ask hard questions about the equity impacts, needs of those most vulnerable, and how to redress historic wrongs. That means science programs in every agency need to have the skills, people, and tools to inform those policy decisions. And it also means new thinking about how to do policy-relevant science.

Science enables us to identify and better understand threats, problems, and challenges like climate change, pollution, environmental degradation, and health impacts. And it enables us to analyze the impacts of proposed policies that address those threats and challenges. But if we don’t evaluate the impacts on the most vulnerable, the fairness of benefits, or the risks to vulnerable communities that remain unaddressed, we are not doing the job. To address this, the president must direct agencies to build the science infrastructure needed to support just and equitable decision making and embrace the task across scientific disciplines.

The science community must continue to take action

Many of us in the science community may be breathing a sigh of relief at the end of the most anti-science administration in our lifetimes. I am. But that absolutely does not mean that it is time to just go back to our labs, field work, or computers and let the rest unfold as it will. No, now more than ever, it is time for continued action.

To have more scientists in government we need to train them, in and out of the classroom. Scientists need to value their colleagues in public service and encourage each other to contribute. To stand up and volunteer for advisory panels. Propose new innovative programs. Embrace diversity, equity, inclusion and opportunity. And stop valuing contributions only through publications in academia.

Scientists need to speak up and speak out in a Biden administration and speak truth to power, because when science is suppressed or manipulated it hurts us all, not just the scientist who is targeted. The damage done by the Trump administration has taught us well that the science community can’t hold itself apart and just expect people to someday “read the literature.” We all need to hold the incoming Biden administration accountable to the same standards we spoke out against during the Trump administration.

Restoring democracy

The last four years and this election have clearly demonstrated that our constitutional democracy can be corrupted. Voting can be undermined. Even the census and the postal service—both crucial to a functioning democracy—are not immune from manipulation.

Federal and state courts can act to mitigate some of this, but it can’t all be up to the legal system because politicized court appointments add additional uncertainty. Our constitution sets out three branches of government to serve the public interest–but if the people’s voice is suppressed or hindered our democracy is undermined.

We have the science of democracy to help us understand these threats as well as the remedies. We know that over-gerrymandered states see greater health disparities among their communities. We know that both over-represented and under-represented communities are suffering the burden of failing democratic institutions. We know that greater life expectancy is associated with less electoral bias.

President Biden needs to immediately address electoral reform. With the bully pulpit under him, we need a new voting rights act. We need a fair census that enumerates all the people in the country and congressional districts designed for representation not partisanship. And we need to overcome the distortions of the Electoral College by calling for more states to sign on to the national popular vote campaign.

In the 21^st century, it is long past time to put behind us the suppression, passive or active, of the votes and representation of Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other communities of color. That will take a strong leader and the well developed field of science—the science of democracy—to guide him.

Mr. President, please lead

I believe we can and will overcome the many challenges we face today. We can become a more equitable society. We can resolve issues of injustice. We can end this pandemic, address the threat of climate change, and rebuild a more sustainable economy.

That will take serious effort—and, as part of that effort, President Biden must embrace science as a tool to solve problems and lift up communities. And we, the scientists and science-minded public, need to serve as guides and watchdogs to ensure that happens.

We can do this.

In the months before the election, there was clear analysis of what would be required to make voting during a deadly pandemic safer – extended early voting, extended vote by mail, more and safer polling places, and additional voter education. And we know that Congress only provided a small part of the estimated needed funding to make this happen smoothly and efficiently. That was a policy choice made by Congress through the political process. Members of both parties called for more funding for the states. But, the White House, with support from the Senate majority, kept the funding for states (and the U.S. Postal Service) to conduct safe elections low. Less funding, slower counting. You get what you pay for.

We also know from the science of democracy the consequences of policy choices in how the election and vote count is conducted. In our constitutional democracy, elections are run largely by the states, according to state law. Federal oversight has been reduced because of recent SCOTUS decisions concerning voting rights. Political scientists have done extensive studies of issues such as gerrymandering of congressional districts and voter suppression tactics and their consequences. So prior to this election states made policy choices in their legislatures and State Houses that would have well documented effects on voting and vote counting. For example, states individually and inconsistently chose the order in which the various types of ballots (mail, early, in person/Election Day, etc.) would be counted. States also chose when to start counting ballots. Some chose a fixed date before the election to begin. Others chose, like Pennsylvania, chose to hold all ballots until after the polls closed.

Clearly, from the analysis and just from straightforward logic, each of those choices affects how quickly accurate results will be available. In other words, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin chose the slowest path and their elected officials knew that would be the case. It isn’t a surprise. And it can’t be fixed by any overheated rhetoric or even lawsuits after the election. States chose a slow path, in some cases fought for it, so this is a consequence of that. The poll workers laboriously sorting checking and counting ballots didn’t choose this method, they are doing the difficult job elected officials set for them.

And then the science of democracy also tells us how voter suppression works and what the consequences are. First, there’s a long and unfortunately impactful history of barriers that make it harder for Black, Indigenous and other communities of color in particular to vote. Second, put up walls and people walled off will do what they can to scale the walls; that is just what we have often seen in this high-turnout election. So it should come as no surprise that it’s taking a while for a system designed to make it hard to vote, and hard to count, to manage a flood of votes in cities and areas with more voters of color that now need to be counted.

Block out the noise suggesting that things are going too slow, there must be something wrong, or the rules aren’t being followed — this is democracy at work. Imagine yourself in the room doing the work with election officials, watched by observers of both parties as required by law. Ballot by ballot, the voices of Americans. Workers taking pride in doing it right under tough conditions. Doing exactly the tasks at hand as designed.

And at the state and national level, the task ahead of us is clear: we need to make sure that the rules are clear, consistent, and fair to protect the right to participate safely in future elections.