Open AccessFormer Science Advisors and Others Respond to White House Scientific Integrity Guidelines
Author(s) -
Showstack Randy
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
eos, transactions american geophysical union
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.316
H-Index - 86
eISSN - 2324-9250
pISSN - 0096-3941
DOI - 10.1029/2011eo010003
Subject(s) - scientific integrity , memorandum , credibility , white (mutation) , government (linguistics) , political science , law , scientific misconduct , research integrity , house of representatives , engineering ethics , public relations , public administration , legislature , engineering , medicine , alternative medicine , chemistry , linguistics , philosophy , pathology , gene , biochemistry
The White House guidance memorandum on scientific integrity, issued on 17 December, begins to flesh out a 9 March 2009 White House memo on the issue. The guidance memo, which had been anticipated since July 2009, specifies that federal agencies should develop policies that ensure a culture of scientific integrity, strengthen the credibility of government research, and facilitate the free flow of scientific and technological information, among other measures (see Eos, 91 (51), 503, 2010). Many people have commented favorably about the memo, while some have raised questions about it. For example, U.S. Rep. Paul Broun (R‐Ga.), chairman‐elect of the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, indicated in a 20 December statement, “Upon initial review, these guidelines seem very similar to the standing guidance already in place. So it raises the questions: Why did they take this long? How were they developed? Why were they 18 months late? And how will the agencies ultimately implement them? I look forward to evaluating these guidelines in the upcoming Congress, because, as we have seen over the last 2 years, rhetoric without action only breeds additional abuses of scientific integrity.”