Interior Department Stumbles Early Out of Scientific Integrity Gate

Perhaps because it really could use it, the Department of Interior is the first agency to publicly release its response to the scientific integrity recommendations finally issued by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in mid-December 2010.  After misrepresenting (if unintentionally) the scientific advice in one of its reports, and receiving significant criticism on an earlier version of this policy, I’m encouraged that they are still trying to get this right.  (Though, in an increasingly rare agreement with Mooney, the Department really needs to properly correct the misrepresentation.)

On to the Department policy.  I anticipate that Sharon Friedman will eventually do a point-by-point dissection of the policy, so I’ll stick to a high-level assessment. Compared to the OSTP guidance, the Interior Department policies sketch out a fair amount of detail.  But since the OSTP guidance is quite thin, a fair criticism would be that additional detail of obligations, processes and definitions would be welcome.  Organizations will come out over the next few days with their specific complaints in this vein.  I’m persuaded by the comments of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) (which has sued OSTP for documents on the process behind its recommendations) that there are important holes to fill.  To wit,

• Whistleblower protections are not spelled out
• Circumstances for preventing Department scientists from speaking with the media have not been listed
• When and where government scientists can publish could use clarification

These issues may or may not be a concern in other departments, but they serve as good places to look when other agencies issue their responses (which is supposed to happen by mid-April).

However, my read of the Interior Department response suggests that it has not effectively addressed two of the four main objectives outlined in the OSTP guidance.  In line with PEER’s comments, the Interior Department policy does not address the issues associated with public communication of science and from scientists.  Granted, the OSTP guidance is thin on this point, but it’s hard for me to find much in the Interior Department policy that addresses it.  Similarly, the policy is thin, if not nonexistent, on the constitution and use of Federal Advisory Committees, something the OSTP guidance addresses.  I would have assumed that OSTP has seen the Interior Department policy, so the absence of this material is puzzling.

That said, I’m very encouraged by two aspects of the Interior Department policy: the definitions and the establishment of Department and Bureau level Scientific Integrity Officers.  Part of the challenge with the issues the scientific integrity push is wrestling with is defining the terms.  You may or may not agree with the definitions, but having them is a necessary starting point for a productive conversation.  As for the Scientific Integrity Officers, it will of course depend on the people given these responsibilities.  But identifying someone separate from the Inspector General and having more than one person for the entire Department shows a commitment to the issues.  There is also a board established to hear and process allegations of scientific and scholarly misconduct (and any agency employee or volunteer may be brought before said board, not just the scientists).

As with any new policy, there will be unintended consequences to sort out once they emerge.  Also, competing interests that aren’t resolved in the policy (such as transparency and protecting confidential, proprietary or other sheltered information) will eventually pose a problem.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the people charged with implementing the policies and managing the processes for complaints and problems will be a critical component of the success or failure of the ‘scientific integrity’ movement.