In March 2009, the White House sent a memorandum to executive branch department and agency heads describing key elements of the Obama administration's plan to reform federal scientific integrity policy.
In December 2010, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued a followup memorandum presenting more detailed guidelines for federal scientific integrity policies. (Our comments on the OSTP memo can be found here.) Agencies and departments were told to submit draft policies to OSTP by the beginning of August, but as of August 15, only a few drafts had been made public, and OSTP had not yet articulated a process for moving forward.
UCS has played a leading role in pressing the administration to fulfill its commitment, meeting with agencies to provide input and share information, offering a suite of resources for scientific integrity policy developers, and tracking scientific integrity progress.
As of March 2013, four years after the original White House memo, 22 departments and agencies have released either draft or final scientific integrity policies. UCS has prepared a comparative analysis of these policies, including detailed lists of each policy's strengths and weaknesses.
Clicking on an agency logo below will open to that agency's page in our analysis document.
Great policies on releasing and sharing data. Although it does not explicitly allow scientists the right of last review, it has many useful aspects to its media and communications policies.
One of the most detailed and comprehensive policies. It explicitly states that it applies to all employees – not just scientists!
Draft policy | UCS comments | UCS analysis | Final policy
Breaks new ground in the areas of personal views exception and giving scientists the right of last review.
First OSTP report | Second OSTP report | Final policy
This is a list of existing policies with little narrative. Although there are good elements, agency scientists would have to spend hours to find and understand them.
Draft policy | UCS comments | UCS analysis | Final policy | Procedural handbook
Excellent policy that is easy to access on the NOAA website; so long as the weaker Department of Commerce policy does not supersede.
Draft policy | UCS comments | UCS analysis | Final policy
The strongest media policy of all the agencies but missing some other key protections.
Scientific integrity memoranda
Cedes important details to its bureaus with an interest in science so don’t look here to see how the department will ensure the integrity of science.
This policy fails to address many of the guidelines put forth in the December 9, 2010 memorandum and its communications policy is excessively restrictive.
Final policy | Other FDA resources | UCS analysis
Principles are there but specific provisions and guidance are missing. ents, agency scientists would have to spend hours to find and understand them.
This policy is excessively restrictive and vague, even given the nature of the Office.
Draft policy | UCS analysis and comments
This policy was released in draft form nearly a year ago and we could not locate a final policy or the draft policy on the department’s website. The draft lacked many crucial details.
Policy statement on scientific integrity
This policy is less than three pages long and hence has many significant gaps. Does not fully embrace the principles in the OSTP guidance memo and has many additional missing elements.
HHS could have set the gold standard by calling on the depth of experience with scientific integrity at the NIH. But they did not.
Very decentralized draft policy that could lead to problems for scientists and very limited commitments to transparency. No final policy could be found on the DOJ website.
Draft policy | UCS analysis and comments | Final policy
The final policy is exactly the same as the draft policy in spite of a large response to a public comment period. Although the principles from the December 9, 2010 memorandum are repeated, there are many flaws, weaknesses, and gaps.
No policy currently available
This draft policy is no longer available on the department’s website and it was not replaced by a final policy. The draft failed to address most of the guidelines put forth in the December 9, 2010 memorandum.
Draft policy | UCS analysis and comments
The final policy could not be located on their website. There was a public comment period but there is no evidence these comments were ever used to create a final policy. Many important features are missing from this draft.
This policy could not be found on the ODNI website and had to be obtained through FOIA. The policy is excessively restrictive and vague, even given the nature of the Office.
Implies that scientists must seek approval from public affairs before speaking to the media which could have a chilling effect on transparency.