Roger Pielke Jr.’s recent blog post in
The Honest Broker, ‘Trump vs Biden on Science Integrity,’ explores both science
integrity across recent political administrations, but also explores
partisanship and political demographics for different government employees. He
shows that science integrity is defined differently and has had different
focuses for different U.S. administrations in recent years. He suggests that
for Democrats, science integrity has come to mean, in part, the protection of
government scientists from partisanship and interference. For the GOP, as
exemplified by Trump’s attempted branding it as ‘Gold Standard Science,’
science integrity also involves protecting research from being politicized by
advocates and activists who might shape research for their own political
purposes. I would say that both viewpoints have merits. He thinks that the
Biden administration clearly saw career government scientists as allies and the
Trump administration sees them as enemies, or “deep state” operatives. He gives
the graph below to show why this might be the case. Government civil servants
are twice as likely to be registered Democrats as registered Republicans,
although it should also be acknowledged that they are nearly as likely to be
Independents as Republicans, and many of those Independents vote Republican. He
also notes other research that showed a much larger divide among government
scientists, who are overwhelmingly Democrats. Thomas Kuhn, in his 1950s book,
'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,' noted that science is, in part,
consensual and thus partly subjective.
Pielke Jr. also states that
partisan tilts in government agencies and groups are not usually problematic.
He notes surveys that suggest that the U.S. military has twice as many
Republicans as Democrats.
Below, he gives a comparison
of Obama, Biden, and Trump's science integrity policies and emphases. They
overlap quite a bit, and all are common-sense recommendations.
Pielke Jr. mentions science
integrity legislation introduced by Rep Paul Tonkin (D-NY), 116 Democrats, and
one Republican, as the Science Integrity Act. The proposed act, introduced several times, has failed to
make an impact, and he says it won’t be adopted until Congress is resumed as an
equal branch of government. The bill would give Congress more oversight powers
for science integrity issues. Voting in favor of that with the current very
small House majority for the Republicans could backfire if the Dems take the
House in 2026. Thus, he says, they are not interested, and the Dems would
likely do the same if they were in the same position. Pielke Jr. is in favor of
science integrity legislation. He notes that when he testified in 2019 before
the House Science Committee, he offered four take-home points:
1. Scientific integrity legislation is important and
necessary. Careful attention is needed to ensure that such legislation
integrates well with existing, related policies;
2. It is essential to distinguish science advice from
policy advice, and both types of advice should fall under scientific integrity
policies;
3. Individual researchers and studies are essential to the
process of science, but science best guides and informs policy when it has been
assessed by scientific advisory bodies to characterize the current state of
knowledge on a particular topic or to present possible policy options –
including perspectives on uncertainties, disagreements, areas of ignorance;
4. Good science and policy advice from experts also results
from the upholding of scientific integrity by elected and appointed officials.
He also offered five
suggestions for elected or appointed officials that can contribute to science
integrity:
· In
cases where science advice is desired, ask clear questions that are answerable
using the tools of science. Policy makers (and their staff) and experts should
work together to understand what questions may be most relevant and useful to
pose;
· In
cases where policy advice is desired, clarify requests to experts for support
for proposed policies from requests for a discussion of alternative options
that might be used to achieve a policy objective;
· For
both science advice and policy advice, utilize and defend established,
authoritative mechanisms for securing expert advice, such as through FACA
committees, the National Academy of Sciences or legislatively mandated
assessments;
· Hold
those formal, authoritative advisory bodies to the highest standards of
scientific integrity (e.g., in committee balance, management of conflicts of
interest, focus on well defined questions, acknowledgement of diversity of
views, etc.);
· Recognize
that science does not speak with one voice, differences of opinion are normal
and to be expected. Uncertainty, ignorance, and changes in understandings are
to be expected. Advisors advise, decision makers decide.
References:
Trump
vs Biden on Science Integrity: Competing views on who needs protection from
whom. Roger Pielke Jr. The Honest Broker. August 25, 2025. Trump
vs Biden on Science Integrity - by Roger Pielke Jr.
STATEMENT
OF DR. ROGER PIELKE, JR. to the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY & SUBCOMMITTEEON INVESTIGATIONS AND
OVERSIGHT of the COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY of the UNITED
STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: HEARING on Scientific Integrity in Federal
Agencies. 2318 Rayburn House Office Building. 17 July 2019. Societal
Vulnerability and Climate
No comments:
Post a Comment