The Trump administration has rescinded the scientific integrity policy of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and it’s a bad sign for public confidence in government science. At a time when Texas is facing its worst measles outbreak in decades and worry about bird flu’s pandemic potential is rising, the public should be able to trust that government scientists will be able to do their work without political interference and deliver useful, accurate information to the public. Rescinding the agency’s scientific integrity policy threatens that trust.
Like other agencies, NIH revised its scientific integrity policy in response to a Biden administration presidential memorandum, which created a process involving public input and cross-agency discussion to shape these policies. In updating its policy, NIH took the welcome step of soliciting public comments on a draft before releasing its final policy in late 2024, and it published announcements of both the comment period and the final policy in the Federal Register (the publication that makes it easier for people to understand and participate in government decision-making). This public engagement was in keeping with NIH’s scientific integrity policy, which stated, “Public input and accountability are woven throughout NIH processes to assure the public of the credibility of our science and our scientific findings.” The policy described mechanisms for engaging with the public, including making research findings available online and public reporting of scientific integrity allegations and outcomes. Such actions recognize that agencies like NIH work for the public as a whole, not for any particular politician or party.
Why scientific integrity policies matter
Government science is crucial for our health and well-being. Research conducted and supported by government agencies has spurred innovation in fields from cancer treatment to quantum computing. We rely on government scientists’ scrutiny of data to make sure that drugs and vaccines marketed in this country are safe and effective and to protect us from harms like contaminated water and polluted air. When hurricanes or wildfires threaten, we rely on National Weather Service alerts to keep safe.
Those who might benefit politically or financially from a certain government decision might seek to influence that decision—including by pushing scientists to ignore evidence of health harms from a drug or industrial chemical. For the sake of public health and economic well-being, we must be able to trust that government scientists are adhering to best scientific practices and able to resist pressure from those who might seek to manipulate or suppress scientific findings. Scientific integrity policies prohibit political influence on science and provide avenues for raising concerns about potential scientific integrity violations, like suppression or alteration of studies or threats to scientists over the content of their work.
Like many of the other recently-created and updated policies from government agencies, NIH’s policy created a pathway to implement the agency’s scientific integrity policy. This included designating a scientific integrity official (SIO) tasked with promoting scientific integrity across the agency and serving as a point of contact for scientific integrity allegations within the agency, as well as being available for informal consultations to discuss whether a concern might indicate a violation. The SIO was also responsible for convening an NIH Scientific Integrity Council “comprising career employees with expertise in ethics, research integrity, research misconduct, communications, whistle blower protections, and other relevant administrative areas.” The Council would assist the SIO in adjudicating allegations of scientific integrity violations.
Another valuable aspect of the NIH policy was that it tasked both the agency’s chief scientist and its SIO with advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). The Trump administration’s opposition to DEIA endangers progress agencies have made in countering the discrimination and injustice disproportionately experienced by scientists belonging to marginalized groups. Although discrimination harms our nation in many ways, one of the most obvious impacts on government science is that it has blocked countless eager science students from the career trajectories that could have best allowed them to put their talents to use for the public good, and deprives all of us of a diverse range of experiences and perspectives.
What will happen at NIH now?
The brief statement rescinding NIH’s scientific integrity policy — which has not appeared in the Federal Register — states that “NIH will adhere to the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] Scientific Integrity Policy to advance scientific integrity goals.” HHS’s scientific integrity policy is very similar to the now-rescinded NIH policy, but the loss of the NIH-specific policy also means the loss of the NIH-specific infrastructure for addressing scientists’ concerns. If an NIH scientist is concerned about a study being manipulated to achieve a politically palatable finding or suppression of research results, they’d most likely prefer to consult with an NIH colleague who understands how the agency typically works and can most easily recognize an aberration. Without knowing that such a colleague is ready to discuss their concerns with them, they might decide to remain silent instead, allowing the problem to persist.
If the HHS scientific policy remains in place — though we shouldn’t assume it will — its SIO and Scientific Integrity Council will likely have their hands full. Within the space of a week, HHS leadership tapped vaccine skeptic David Geier, who has a history of methodologically compromised research, to lead an unnecessary study on vaccines and autism; acknowledged that it had not released its experts’ assessment of the elevated risk of catching measles in certain outbreak-adjacent areas; and prompted longtime top vaccine official Peter Marks to resign, warning in his departure letter, “it has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by [HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.], but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies.” CDC and FDA, the agencies within HHS where the suppression of the measles report and Marks’s resignation under pressure occurred, have their own scientific integrity policies (here and here), but they might be rescinded next.
If the Trump administration continues to rescind scientific integrity policies, the public is likely to reason that they’re doing it because they want free rein to manipulate, censor, suppress, and ignore scientific evidence. That’s a recipe for degraded trust in the U.S. government. People are less likely to listen to advice from institutions they don’t trust, and that could cost lives in the next hurricane or pandemic. If the Trump administration wants the public to trust it, they should restore NIH’s scientific integrity policy and leave the others intact.