Best Practices for Handling Challenging Scientific Integrity Allegations
1. Background
The Subcommittee on Scientific Integrity (SOSI) was established in 2022 by action of the Committee on Science of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). SOSI was established in response to the 2022 NSTC Scientific Integrity Fast-Track Action Committee’s report entitled Protecting the Integrity of Government Science (2022 Report) which found that an interagency deliberative body would be critical to building successful scientific integrity programs across the whole of government. This body is essential to the long-term protection of scientific integrity in the Executive Branch (agencies).
The 2022 Charter of the NSTC Subcommittee on Scientific Integrity (SOSI) indicates that the Subcommittee shall:
Assess, analyze, and offer recommendations to the extent allowed by law, applicable regulations, and consistent with privacy obligations, regarding public allegations of scientific integrity violations, such as allegations that involve senior-level officials, political appointees, or scientific integrity officials.
The role of scientific integrity is to safeguard the availability of objective and impartial information to support evidence-based and evidence-informed decision making in accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies. Scientific integrity does not prescribe a specific outcome, but helps to manage risks for decision makers so processes are transparent and free from inappropriate influence. As technology advances and priorities change, our procedures will evolve in response to best practices. Our commitment to the principles of scientific integrity -- planning, conducting, reviewing, managing, using and communicating science with honesty and objectivity for the benefit of the nation -- will remain.
A. Purpose
The purpose of this webpage is:
- to provide recommendations for Scientific Integrity Officers (SIOs) on handling allegations involving senior-level officials, political appointees, or scientific integrity officials; and
- to establish a process for, and conditions under which, SOSI will support agencies or assist SIOs in:
- public communications on such allegations, and
- handling investigations of such allegations.
B. Context
For the efficient and effective conduct of scientific integrity investigations, it is vital that SIOs can assess and communicate on matters of Federal scientific integrity. This helps to foster and strengthen a culture and practice of scientific integrity government-wide, and provides coordinated interagency support.
When scientific integrity complaints are received, a timely, thorough response to the concerns is vital to ensure the scientific record is protected. These recommendations are designed to support scientific integrity across government, as well as the SIOs and other officials with related responsibilities within agencies. In this document, the term "agency" means each authority of the Government of the United States, including any department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board or bureau of the United States (consistent with 5 USC 1, §551(1)).
2. Role of the Subcommittee on Scientific Integrity
Pursuant to the NSTC SOSI charter, the Subcommittee plays several roles in these special cases of scientific integrity allegations. These functions include:
- Providing advice and consultation to SIOs and others at Federal agencies on special cases.
- Issuing public communications around public scientific integrity issues, including, but not limited to, statements on public scientific integrity issues, analysis of trends in scientific integrity, recommendations on public allegations of scientific integrity violations.
- Assisting in assessment and investigation of scientific integrity allegations that cannot be appropriately handled within the originating agency (see Section 3 below).
A. Advice and consultation
SOSI provides consultation and advice to agency SIOs on an as needed basis. Earlier consultation is preferred. To access SOSI advice or consultation, agency Scientific Integrity Officers and others with scientific integrity responsibilities may reach out to SOSI Agency Co-Chairs, SOSI Strategy and Emerging Issues Interagency Working Group leads, or email ScientificIntegrity@ostp.eop.gov.
B. Technical Support and Analysis
The Strategy and Emerging Issues Interagency Working Group (IWG) can be used as a resource for SIOs to seek advice or suggestions from others who have similar expertise and experience. The IWG can help to analyze “lessons learned” and synthesize trends or best practices following the close of a scientific integrity case.
C. Public communications
On occasion, SOSI issues public communications on matters of scientific integrity already in the public realm and within its scope of expertise. Such communications may take the form of SOSI statements, analyses, or recommendations posted to science.gov or ostp.gov or other platforms. Their purpose is to provide clarity, advice, and leadership on timely matters relevant to Federal scientific integrity. SOSI leadership shall decide when such communications will be issued.
3. Alternative Processes for Scientific Integrity Investigations
A. Conditions for Investigations of Challenging Allegations
In most cases, agency SIOs will follow established agency operating procedures to investigate scientific integrity allegations under the relevant scientific integrity policy. However, if the conditions of this section are met, the NSTC SOSI recommends that the agency and relevant SIO explore other options for handling of the allegation, including but not limited to the Alternative Investigative Options described in Section 3.C. This will enable handling of the allegation, in a manner that ensures a thorough, independent, and unbiased investigation can occur under the relevant scientific integrity policy. The use of external contractors may also be an option that agencies consider. SIOs may wish to confer with their legal and Office of Inspector General counterparts in accordance with their routine processes. Such conditions include, but are not limited to the following:
- Allegations against a political appointee.
- Allegations against a senior official or person in the line of command for the relevant Scientific Integrity Officer.
- Allegations that involve the relevant SIO (see below conditions for recusal of Scientific Integrity Officers).
- Allegations that span Federal agencies
- Allegations involving a Federal agency that does not have a scientific integrity policy.
- Allegations against a White House Official not covered by an Executive Offices of the President component Scientific Integrity Policy.
- Other conditions under which it would be challenging for a SIO to conduct an independent, unbiased investigation without fear of retaliation.
B. Conditions for Recusal of Scientific Integrity Officers
A recused SIO or member of their chain of command (if implicated in the complaint) should not participate in the consideration of a matter from which the SIO is recused. All recusals will be noted at the receipt of an allegation, although a recusal can be revisited as an investigation progresses. The guidance in this subsection is adapted from the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency Integrity Committee Policies and Procedures (CIGIE, 2018).
Scientific Integrity Officers should consider whether recusal from participation is appropriate in:
- Matters in which the SIO or another person in that person’s office has personally and substantially participated.
- Matters as to which the SIO determines that the circumstances present would lead a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question their impartiality in the matter An SIO or member of their chain of command whose recusal is at issue will not direct or refuse such determination; Matters in which participation would create a conflict of interest (or, the appearance of a conflict of interest) under or violate a law, regulation, or mandatory standard applicable to all Federal employees or officials in the Executive Branch of the United States.
- Matters while the SIO or member of their chain of command knows that he or she is under criminal investigation or internal administrative investigation.
- Matters that requires a security clearance if the SIO does not hold the requisite clearance.
C. Alternative Investigation Options
Depending on the nature of the particular scientific integrity matter, several entities may be useful for handling investigation of the allegation or otherwise providing advice, communication, or guidance on handling an alternative investigation process. SIOs should coordinate, either through SOSI or independently, with these entities directly to understand feasibility and scope of their potential involvement in an individual case. Below is a list of entities that may be relevant.
- Alternate Federal Agency. Agencies may want to consider engaging a different Federal agency or parallel but independent office within an agency to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest, challenging lines of command or other unique situations. The development of an interagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among Federal research and scientific agencies may be helpful in this circumstance. In an MOA, agencies would agree to a set of procedures for harmonized investigative procedures in the event of a scientific integrity complaint that is outside the available resources for that agency (for example, due to recusal of an agencySIO). Any agency would retain the ability to independently investigate and determine the optimal procurement method to seek assistance, and this would be made clear in the MOA. The MOA could be developed in consultation with SOSI to ensure alignment across agencies.
- President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is a federal advisory committee charged with making science, technology, and innovation policy recommendations to the President and the White House. PCAST is housed in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and chartered by the Department of Energy. PCAST makes decisions independent from OSTP about the topics it takes on and could potentially play a role in scientific integrity issues, through issuing statements, conducting assessments, or presenting recommendations pertaining to Federal scientific integrity.
- National Academy of Public Administration. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) is a Congressionally-chartered non-partisan 501(c)3 nonprofit Academy that responds to requests for assistance from Congress; federal agencies; and state, local, and international government entities on issues of importance. NAPA has previously handled such special cases of scientific integrity allegations (NAPA, 2020).
- Office of Special Counsel. The Office of Special Council is an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency that may be helpful, especially on scientific integrity cases where reprisal for whistleblowing is of concern.
- Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) is an independent entity established within the executive branch to address integrity, economy and effectiveness issues that transcend individual Government agencies and aid in the establishment of a professional, well-trained and highly skilled workforce in the Offices of Inspectors General. CIGIE may be helpful in cross-agency matters of scientific integrity that pertain to waste, fraud, abuse or retaliation.
- The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has a Strategic Council for Research Excellence, Integrity, and Trust; a Societal Experts Action Network (SEAN): Facilitating Rapid and Actionable Responses to Social, Behavioral, and Economic-Related Questions
- Science and Technology Policy Institute. The Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI) is one of three federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) operated by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a nonprofit corporation. STPI was established by Congress to inform policy decisions of the OSTP in the Executive Office of the President.
- U.S. Government Accountability Office. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) an independent, non-partisan agency that works for Congress. Under Congressional direction, GAO has issued reports on scientific integrity (GAO-22-104613, 2022).
- U.S. Congress. The U.S. Congress has powers to investigate, hold hearings and otherwise provide oversight and direction on matters of Federal scientific integrity.
- Administrative Conference of the United States. The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) is an independent federal agency in the executive branch charged with identifying and promoting improvements in the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness of the procedures by which federal agencies conduct regulatory programs, administer grants and benefits, protect the public interest, and perform other essential governmental functions. ACUS has previously issued recommendations related to scientific integrity in the report Science in the Administrative Process (ACUS, 2013).