Scientific Integrity as Recruitment Tool

In “Hiring for the Future of the Science and Technology Enterprise” (Issues, Fall 2021), Candice Wright has created an accurate picture of the significant challenges that many federal agencies face in strengthening and sustaining the highly trained workers needed to drive scientific and technological innovation on a national scale. Importantly, she also recommends specific actions to improve the recruitment and retention of these experts.

As a former senior scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency, I wholeheartedly agree with her recommendations on comprehensive workforce planning, methods to improve pay and hiring procedures, and approaches to increase the diversification and professional development of staff. However, Wright failed to address a major new challenge to the federal workforce—the potential return of the politicization and suppression of science experienced during the Trump administration. This new challenge has been well documented in the press and may have a chilling effect on the hiring of government scientists for years to come unless equally well publicized preventive actions are taken.

I can personally attest to the suppression of science at EPA. The one most publicly visible was the Trump administration’s removal of EPA’s internationally renowned website on climate change. Unfortunately, there were many other instances of science suppression hidden from public view during those four years. In 2018, EPA’s Office of Inspector General conducted an audit in which it surveyed EPA science and technology staff to determine whether the agency’s scientific integrity policy was being implemented as intended. The office published the following disturbing results in May 2020: 705 respondents reported fear of retaliation if they expressed a scientific opinion about the agency’s science; 368 respondents reported that research findings had been altered or suppressed for “other than technical reasons”; 400 respondents said they had not reported violations of the scientific integrity policy because they feared retaliation and believed that the reporting would make no difference; and 1,166 respondents indicated they did not feel comfortable reporting instances relating to the loss of scientific integrity.

New EPA leaders must rebuild the science and technology staff, which is now the smallest it has been in 30 years despite major new congressionally mandated responsibilities. They will certainly want to follow all of Wright’s recommendations on identifying skill gaps, updating job classifications, using direct hire authorities, and improving professional development. Above all, however, they must assure current and prospective staff that they have measures in place to prevent the politicization of science in the future. EPA will need a more robust scientific integrity policy that protects staff from retaliation and holds anyone responsible for altering or suppressing science accountable.

In fact, all federal agencies that fund, conduct, or oversee scientific research need strong policies with real accountability. The Scientific Integrity Act (H.R. 849), which Congress is currently considering, would require the adoption and implementation of such a policy in all agencies responsible for scientific research. Passage of such a bill could be the highly publicized action needed to improve the critical recruitment and retention of federal scientists.

Betsy Southerland