Policies to protect government scientists must be defended

Private and political interests routinely conspire to sideline and misrepresent science and evidence in the public policy process. The Center for Science and Democracy, a new initiative at the Union of Concerned Scientists, endeavors to change this dynamic to strengthen the role of science in decision making.

Proposed laws based on false premises could undermine science for the public interest

Our nation's health and prosperity are based on a foundation of independent scientific discovery. Yet in recent years, political interference in federal government science has become widespread, threatening this legacy. We explore the ways science has been misused, the attempts to measure the pervasiveness of this problem, and the effects on our long-term capacity to meet today's most complex public health challenges. Good government and a functioning democracy require public policy decisions to be informed by independent science. The scientific and public health communities must speak out to defend taxpayer-funded science from political interference. Encouragingly, both the scientific community and Congress are exploring ways to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking.

O pen records laws worldwide are critical to holding public institutions, including universities, accountable. Such laws protect against inappropriate influence on the scientific enterprise and promote public trust in the integrity of science and scientists. But the growing use of electronic communications by researchers makes these laws vulnerable to misuse. Conversations that used to occur in person and by other less-recordable means are now electronically written. Increasingly, activists across the political spectrum in several countries are requesting not only records of discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of work, but also preliminary paper drafts and private constructive criticisms from colleagues. These requests can attack and intimidate academics, threatening their reputations, chilling their speech, disrupting their research, discouraging them from tackling contentious topics, and ultimately confusing the public.* So what level of disclosure is appropriate? How can public accountability be balanced with the privacy essential for scientific inquiry? As AAAS President Rush Holt noted, "…excessively intrusive demands for personal or irrelevant information that go beyond appropriate levels of oversight" can negatively affect scientific discovery. † As recent examples, four U.S. universities received open records requests for years of correspondence between biologists and several private companies from activists who oppose genetically modified organisms. In 2012, a mining company asked West Virginia University for draft documents and peerreview comments about occupational health research. The burden from these requests can be considerable even if documents are ultimately kept confidential. In 2009, British tobacco marketing researchers reported stress and weeks of lost time after a tobacco manufacturer requested not only correspondence but also primary data, questionnaires, and record descriptions. In 2015, University of Arizona climate researchers reported spending weeks culling through e-mails in response to a request for their correspondence documents.