Science research

Scientific Integrity

/ raminskibba / 4 Comments

In this blog post, let’s discuss scientific integrity–specifically, efforts to keep scientific research as independent as possible from political, corporate, or other influence. Such influences are important for a variety of policies including energy policy (especially related to climate change), health and drugs, food and nutrition, education, etc., when particular companies or organizations have a financial or other stake in the outcome. For example, fossil fuel companies support the “denial industry“, claiming that the science of global warming is inconclusive, agribusinesses promote genetically modified crops, and drug companies promote antidepressant and ADHD drugs, while funding scientific research that often supports their campaigns.

Science informs political officials and agencies when they’re designing regulations for air and water pollution, when determining whether a particular drug is safe and efficacious, when assessing whether particular foods or products are safe for consumers, etc. In my opinion, science can rarely be completely “objective” and “unbiased”; scientists are humans, after all, and they have their own motivations and considerations that can affect their work. The important thing, however, is to reduce political and commercial influence as much as possible so that scientists can do their research and then present their results as clearly and accurately as possible.

In all fields of science, scientists to some extent are affected by funding constraints and grant agencies. These constraints can affect exactly what is studied, how it is researched, and how the results are presented in the media and to the public. Nonetheless, scientific research is particularly important–and susceptible to more outside influences–when it is related to public policy, including the topics above. In addition, politically-related work in the social sciences, especially economics, can be contentious as well.

In the US under the Bush administration, many felt that scientists were under attack. For example, a “revolving door” appeared to be in place when former lobbyists and spokespeople for industries later worked at agencies having the task of regulating their former industries; in particular cases, they appeared to write or advocate for policy shifts that benefited these industries. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report, “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science”, claiming that the White House censors and suppresses reports by its own scientists, stacks advisory committees, and disbands government panels. There later appeared to be political influence on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), on researchers working on embryonic stem cells, on sex education (because of arguments about the effectiveness of abstinence-based programs), and on the teaching of biological evolution.

Although the Obama administration appears to have more respect for science and scientists (see this 2013 UCS report), the politicization of some scientific work continues. The assessment of the social and environmental impact of the Keystone XL pipeline may be such an example. The final environmental impact statement, which was released by the State Department yesterday, appears to endorse the pipeline, but the interpretation is unclear (see this coverage in the Wall Street Journal and Scientific American blog).

In any case, these contentious situations will be easier when government agencies have explicit policies for scientific integrity and when the affiliations and employment histories of officials are transparent. It’s also important to keep in mind that the struggle for independent and transparent science never ends. Scientists should always try to be as clear as possible about their views or beliefs when they are relevant to their work (see this NYT blog for useful advice), and results and data should be made publicly available whenever possible.

On the US federal budget

/ raminskibba / 3 Comments

I’d like to briefly comment on the budget(s) being negotiated in Congress.  In particular, I’ll try to focus on the impact on investment in science, though there are other important issues as well, such as the unemployment benefits that apparently won’t be extended and the cuts on military retirees’ benefits.  The budget plan led by Rep. Paul Ryan (who is a questionable choice for the job) and Sen. Patty Murray has passed the House and is expected to pass in the Senate later today.

Budget negotiations are often boring but are nonetheless important.  The current two-year budget plan has advantages and disadvantages.  The first and most ridiculous “advantage” is that a budget deal would avoid a government shutdown.  Such is the state of affairs in US politics.  The shutdown harmed many sectors of the government: clinical trials at the NIH were suspended; inspections and other work was suspended at the FDA and Consumer Product Safety Commission; staff at the CDC and EPA were put on furlough; key tests for NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (the successor to Hubble) were suspended; the National Science Foundation canceled its Antarctic research program; and three of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory’s telescopes were shut down, resulting in a substantial loss of data.  Ultimately, this considerably hurts US competitiveness in science: according to the OECD, the US is ranked 21st and 26th in science and math, below a few developing countries such as Vietnam.

An important advantage of the current budget bill is that it eases some of the across-the-board spending cuts due to the “sequestration”.  These cuts were extremely harmful on basic scientific research, which already receives less than 1% of the federal budget, as opposed to at least 20% to the military.  Earlier this year, more than fifty Nobel laureates wrote to Congress, urging them to remove these cuts to science investment.  Scientific research will be affected for years to come, and research funded by the NIH, NSF, NASA, and the DOE’s Office of Science are particularly affected.  Federally funded agencies and universities have attempted to sustain their research programs and avoid laying off scientists, but some may no longer be able to continue doing so.  Science and engineering education at colleges and universities have been affected as well.

Under the Ryan/Murray deal, approximately 75% of the spending reduction under sequestration will remain in place.  According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the deal may result in a restoration of roughly $8 billion in R&D funding above sequester levels over the next two years, though the final allocations for FY 2014 are now up to appropriators.

Though the budget deal may be better than no deal at all, it seems possible that congressional lawmakers could come up with and pass a better budget.  Science research and education should be spared the sequestration’s cuts.