This Administration’s Commitment to “Gold Standard Science” is Nonsense

How a phony ‘gold standard’ lets political appointees overrule real science

Disclaimer: This post was written in part by Dr. Andrew Rosenberg in his personal capacity and not on behalf of any organization or entity. The views expressed herein are Dr. Rosenberg’s and his alone.

With a May 23rd Executive Order (EO), Trump’s favorite instrument of governing, the President decreed that his administration is “Restoring Gold Standard Science.” That’s troubling on many levels. At the top - there is no such thing as gold standard science. There is only carefully reviewed evidence from studies that follow the scientific process. And it is from the weight of evidence across multiple studies that knowledge is gained. “Gold Standard Science” is a nonsense phrase that, far from being restored, should be recognized as a dangerous political slogan.

The Executive Order Technical Details Are Harmful

Scientists and science policy experts, have pointed out that the order contains a load of bad ideas that have been circulating for years , all undermining scientific integrity. A recent article by Steven Lewandowsky also lays out many of the technical problems in the EO. Their criticisms and others reported in major scientific journals, such as Science and Nature, prompted a letter signed by many scientists calling for the order to be withdrawn.

Science Already Had High Standards

Beyond the technical criticisms, the very notion of “gold standard science” is problematic. It suggests that science and scientific evidence are either “gold” or it are somehow bad. (Note: The President has a slightly bizarre obsession with things gold. He seems to slather that color everywhere, including most recently the bathroom of the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House. But, let’s leave that to the science of psychology.)

Science is a means of generating knowledge using well established scientific processes, methods, and standards for generating hypotheses, developing theories, and accumulating evidence to increase our understanding of the universe. If logic and scientific methods are carefully applied, some of that evidence will be strong, some less so. And the lack of evidence of a given phenomenon yields important information as well. Critically, it is not any one study that generates true knowledge; it is the weight of evidence of multiple studies that leads to greater understanding.

But labeling some studies as “gold standard” is a political judgement to promote a particular result. In fact, the process laid out in Trump’s EO specifically assigns the determination of what constitutes “gold standard science” to political appointees, regardless of their scientific expertise, in service of the President’s agenda.

That’s a huge change from the scientific process that has evolved over the past century or so, which, for quality control, relies heavily on peer review. That is, critical review by experts in the scientific disciplines a given study is based on. While many people think of peer review as part of the process for accepting a manuscript for publication of scientific articles in academic journals, its use is much broader.

In governmental work, scientific studies or compilations of knowledge that are intended to inform policy decisions are almost always peer reviewed, often multiple times in an interactive setting directly involving both reviewers and researchers, and frequently the broader public. Having participated in such reviews (of our own research and as reviewers of the work of other scientists) over many years, we can attest that: 1) they are intense, usually very thorough, and frankly sometimes contentious in part because of the participation of interest groups, businesses, and individuals directly affected by policy decisions; 2) they inevitably probe and highlight possibly controversial or questionable results and conclusions; and 3) revisions or additional analyses are frequently called for. For example, it is not uncommon for reviewers to demand additional sensitivity analyses of the results. These analyses reveal how sensitive specific results are to underlying assumptions, parameter choices, or data sources. They form the basis for formal risk analyses of alternative courses of action.

Now, interpose political judgement to decide if a study is “gold standard.” What value would that add?

Of course, policy choices are socio-political decisions; they are not scientific decisions. To be “transparent” and clear, decision makers should state their political rationale., instead of hiding behind a phony “gold” label for science that supports their position while dismissing the scientific evidence that is inconvenient.

Why Peers Rather than Politics?

The public often perceives that “new studies” are definitive about the issue, say, for example the impacts of certain foods on human health or an an interesting observations or discovey in nature. But for scientists, while new studies may be exciting, rarely if ever is a single study definitive.

And as scientists, we always recognize the uncertainty of our knowledge. Unfortunately, acknowledging uncertainty is rarely part of press reports concerning a new study, discovery, or cure. Uncertain knowledge isn’t meaningless; it’s important. There is always more to learn and understand. Inherent uncertainty in scientific knowledge that forms the basis for policy decisions can be challenging in the political process because it is frequently used as an argument for inaction. But, waiting for certainty results in delaying action even when the risks of harm to the public are ever greater. Case in point is treating an outbreak of a highly infectious disease like COVID 19. People were dying by the millions. Action was needed while scientific information about the virus and its impacts was still a work in progress.

Gold Isn’t Better

Despite what the President and his minions think, gold isn’t best or even better for everything. Sometimes it is soft and weak. It is garish and may hide flaws. And it can distract attention from more important things. Unlike the weight of scientific evidence, the Trump Executive Order is a fool’s gold standard and should be treated as such.

That’s it for today - Thank you so much for reading SciLight!

If you enjoyed today’s post, please like it or share it with others. You can also support the work we do to shine a light on the politicization of science by becoming a paid subscriber!

If you want to share today’s post as a web page with your network, click this button:

If you have suggestions, questions, comments, or want to drop us a line - send it all to scilightsubstack@gmail.com