Competencies for Promoting and Protecting Scientific Integrity: Got Science?

Source: Pexels

During a stint as an analyst for a federal law enforcement agency, I was surprised to see the number and variety of assessments, policies, plans, and recommendations that should have been informed by scientific information but were instead based on personal experiences, intuition, and questionable ‘research’ methods. For example, during a risk assessment briefing to inform a regional strategy, a fellow analyst cited Breitbart—a far-right website—as a credible source of information for his assessment. What was even more alarming was the fact that decision makers at the briefing accepted the analyst’s sources and conclusions as valid.

That incident and many more like it made me wonder how often decisions were being made by government personnel who lacked the competencies to recognize when scientific information was needed and to understand how scientific information should be evaluated and applied. It was one of the issues I had hoped would be addressed through federal government initiatives to promote and protect scientific integrity. Instead, it is an issue that seems to have been largely overlooked.

Scientific Integrity Guidance

In January 2023, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) provided federal government agencies with guidance for developing and implementing agency-specific scientific integrity policies. The guidance identifies a need for all federal government personnel—not just scientists—to adhere to scientific integrity principles and standards whenever they conduct or manage scientific activities, use scientific information to inform decisions, or communicate scientific information to other government personnel, the media, or the public.

The guidance further requires agencies to deliver scientific integrity training and education to all personnel with job functions related to scientific activities or scientific information. However, the guidance does not provide direction regarding the specific personnel competencies—or “knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics”—that agencies should address through their scientific integrity training.

So, what competencies should be addressed to enable government personnel to adhere to scientific integrity policies, uphold scientific integrity principles, and recognize scientific integrity violations?

The answer to that question depends partly on whether an individual’s job functions involve conducting, managing, using, or communicating science. Due to the nature of their jobs, federal government scientists should presumably have the right competencies to promote and protect scientific integrity when conducting scientific activities. In fact, selecting personnel for science and technology positions “based on the candidate's knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity” was the first principle articulated in President Obama’s 2009 memorandum on scientific integrity.

But what about the non-scientist personnel who do not have a science background yet are expected to use scientific information to inform decision-making? Are government agencies ensuring that non-scientist personnel have the right competencies to maintain high standards of scientific integrity? And what are the requisite competencies?

Before discussing specific competencies, it is helpful to understand how government personnel are currently expected to use scientific information when making decisions.

Evidence-Based Decision-Making

The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Pub. L. No. 115–435) was designed to increase the use of evidence in federal government agency decision-making. Title I of the act required the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act agencies to incorporate evidence-building plans (also called learning agendas) into their existing strategic plans, assess agency capacities to build evidence, develop evaluation plans and policies, and establish evaluation officer positions.

While the Evidence Act defined evidence as “information produced as a result of statistical activities conducted for a statistical purpose,” subsequent guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2019, 2020, and 2021 defined evidence as “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. As such, evidence can be quantitative or qualitative and may come from a variety of sources, including foundational fact finding (e.g., aggregate indicators, exploratory studies, descriptive statistics, and other research), performance measurement, policy analysis, and program evaluation.” Evidence was further described as including but not limited to scientific information produced through government scientific activities or collected from non-government sources.

OMB’s guidance directs personnel in all federal agencies and at all levels of government to use evidence to support strategic, programmatic, operational, regulatory, and policy decisions related to agency operations, human resources, financial systems, grantmaking, program administration, and other relevant matters. That direction translates to an expectation for non-scientist personnel in various non-scientific positions to potentially use scientific information to inform their decisions.

OMB’s guidance also states that evidence-building activities must adhere to scientific integrity principles and practices—as mandated in President Biden’s 2021 memorandum on restoring trust in government through scientific integrity and evidence-based policymaking—but fails to address how government personnel should adhere to scientific integrity when using evidence. As with the scientific integrity guidance, though training on evidence-based practices is required, the appropriate contents of that training is not articulated in detail.

So, we’ve established that non-scientist personnel may use scientific information in myriad ways when making decisions. However, thanks to vague guidance, it is still unclear what competencies these personnel would need to enable them to meet high standards of scientific integrity when using scientific information. To conceive the right competencies, it is helpful to review the basics of federal government scientific integrity.

Scientific Integrity and Related Violations

The federal government defines scientific integrity as “the adherence to professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about science and scientific activities,” with professional practices defined as “conducting oneself with the qualities that are characterized by skill, competence, ethics, and courtesy.”

Within the federal government’s scientific integrity guidance, the following are identified as scientific integrity violations:

-          committing research misconduct (e.g., fabricating data or results, falsifying research methods or outcomes, or plagiarizing someone else’s work)

-          employing flawed scientific practices (e.g., using inappropriate research methods or failing to meet research quality standards)

-          failing to ensure research has been properly reviewed (e.g., through proper peer review, clearance processes, or Federal Advisory Committees)

-          undermining the scientific workforce (e.g., selecting scientific staff that do not have the proper scientific qualifications or undermining the expertise of scientific staff that are qualified)

-          suppressing, delaying, or censoring scientific information that is used for decision-making or communicated to the public

-          mischaracterizing science by distorting research results, exaggerating uncertainty, or misrepresenting assumptions

-          manipulating science by inappropriately editing scientific products

The guidance further identifies the potential for scientific integrity violations to be intentional or unintentional. This leaves open the possibility that someone could commit a scientific integrity violation due to incompetence rather than malice.

Therefore, to avoid committing a scientific integrity violation, non-scientist personnel without a science background who use scientific information as evidence to support their decision-making would arguably need the ability to understand the basics of research, scientific practices, peer review, etc. to effectively determine whether they are adhering to scientific integrity principles. In other words, personnel need to understand how things should be done so they can identify when things are or are not being done correctly.

Science Competencies for Scientific Integrity

To this researcher’s knowledge, specific competencies for maintaining scientific integrity while using scientific information to support government decisions have not been published as practitioner guidance or within relevant literature. However, competencies have been developed for the proper use of scientific information in other contexts, and some of those competencies may be appropriate in the context of government decision-making.

For example, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2025 Science Framework was designed to assess what 15-year-olds need “to know, value, and be able to do in situations requiring the use of scientific and technological knowledge.” The 2025 Science Framework includes an assessment of three science competencies:

1.      “explain phenomena scientifically,” including the ability to evaluate scientific explanations and models, and understand potential implications of scientific knowledge

2.      “construct and evaluate designs for scientific enquiry and interpret scientific data and evidence critically,” including the ability to evaluate research approaches and draw appropriate conclusions from scientific information

3.      “research, evaluate and use scientific information for decision making and action,” including the ability to judge the credibility of ‘scientific’ information, determine whether the source has relevant expertise, identify conflicts of interest, and ascertain whether there is a scientific consensus

The PISA 2025 Science Framework also includes an assessment of three environmental science competencies, three types of science knowledge (content, procedural, epistemic), three contexts for challenges that involve scientific information (personal, local/national, global), and important aspects of a student’s science identity, including but not limited to the extent to which they value science.

So, what does the PISA science framework have to do with science competencies for federal government scientific integrity? Well, if the science competencies identified in the PISA are needed by 15-year-olds to make sound decisions in their everyday lives, then these competencies are a good place to start for developing the science competencies that federal government personnel need to make sound decisions and adhere to scientific integrity standards when using scientific information.

Addressing the science competencies of federal government personnel will arguably need to become a priority if the federal government hopes to have a workforce capable of making coherent decisions and meeting high standards of scientific integrity. And it is something that federal government agencies are hopefully already addressing while they implement their scientific integrity policies—because our collective future will be brighter with a federal government workforce that understands scientific processes, embraces a culture of science, and can employ science competencies to effectively and ethically serve the public.

About the Author

Keeley Townsend is a former government analyst in the New York City Fire Department and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and a current doctoral student pursuing a PhD in public administration and policy. She holds a Bachelor of Science in environmental geography, Master of Arts in urban affairs and public policy, and Master of Business Administration in strategic management. Her research interests include information integrity, scientific integrity, business process optimization, and plain language writing in government agencies and public service organizations. Keeley is a member of the Nonfiction Authors Association, ACES: The Society for Editing, and American Mensa.