On May 27, 2025, President Trump signed an executive decree (EO) on “Restoration of the science of golden standards. “” 90 fed. Reg. 22601. The work declares that the Trump administration “undertakes to restore a ordeal for science in order to guarantee that the research funded by the federal government is transparent, rigorous and impactful, and that federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable and impartial scientific evidence.” The acts restores the scientific integrity policies of the first Trump administration and “guarantees that agencies practice the transparency of data, recognize relevant scientific uncertainties, are transparent on the hypotheses and the probability of the scenarios used, objectively tackle scientific results and precisely communicate scientific data.”
Restoration of the science of golden standards
The OEA directs the director of the Office of the Science and Technological Policy of the White House (OSTP), in consultation with the heads of the agencies concerned, to issue advice within 30 days for the agencies on the implementation of the “science of golden standards” in the conduct and management of their respective scientific activities. The work defines the science of norms or as science carried out in a reproducible way; transparent; communication of error and uncertainty; collaborative and interdisciplinary; skeptical about its results and hypotheses; structured for the falsifiability of hypotheses; subject to an examination by impartial peers; Accept negative results such as positive results; and without conflicts of interest. Once the OSTP publishes the directives, the OUT commands each agency manager to update agency policies applicable quickly governing the production and use of scientific information, including scientific integrity policies, to implement the directives of the Director of the OSTP. Within 60 days of the publication of the OSTP directives, agency leaders must present themselves to the director of the OSTP on the actions taken to implement the science of gold standards at their agency.
Improved the use, interpretation and communication of scientific data
Within 30 days of the date of the OE, agency chiefs and employees must respect the following rules governing the use, interpretation and communication of scientific data, unless otherwise indicated in the law:
- Employees must not engage in a scientific fault or knowingly rely on information resulting from scientific fault;
- Unless otherwise indicated by law and in accordance with relevant policies that protect national security or sensitive personal or confidential commercial information (CBI), agency leaders will be timely and, as far as possible and within the agency authority;
- Publicly make the following information in possession of the agency accessible:
- The data, analyzes and conclusions associated with scientific and technological information produced or used by the Agency that the agency evaluates reasonably will have a clear and substantial effect on important public policies or important decisions of the private sector (influential scientific information), including the data cited in the literature revised by peers; And
- The models and analyzes (including the source code of these models), the agency used to generate such influential scientific information. The work declares that employees cannot invoke exemption 5 to the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) to avoid the disclosure of these models, unless it is authorized in writing to do so by the agency chief following an opinion prior to the director of the OSTP;
- The risk models used to guide agencies’ application actions or select the law application objectives are not information that must be disclosed under this subsection;
- Publicly make the following information in possession of the agency accessible:
- When you use scientific information in agency decision -making, employees must recognize and transparently document uncertainty, including how uncertainty is spread through all the models used in the analysis;
- When employees produce or use scientific information to shed light on political or legal determinations, they must use sciences that include legal standards applicable to these determinations, including when agencies assess the realistic or reasonably predictable effects of an action;
- Employees must be transparent on the probability of hypotheses and scenarios used. The work declares that “(h) the hypotheses and scenarios that are too precautionary and too precautionary should only be invoked in the decision -making of the agency when the law requires or otherwise relevant to the action of the agency”;
- When scientific or technological information is used to shed light on agency assessments and subsequent decision -making, employees must apply a “scientific evidence” approach;
- Employee communication of scientific information must comply with the results of relevant analysis and evaluation and, insofar as uncertainty is present, the degree of uncertainty must be communicated. The day notes that “(c) OMMUTICS involving a scientific model or information derived from a scientific model should include a reference to any material hypothesis which clarifies the results of the model”; And
- Once the guidelines on the science of gold standards have been established and promulgated, it will, among other things, the basis of the employee assessment of all the scientific and technological information requested in the OE, except if necessary by law.
Interim scientific integrity policies
Until the publication of updated scientific integrity policies updated, the CAV indicates that the policies of scientific integrity in each agency must be governed by the policies of scientific integrity which existed in the executive power on January 19, 2021. The OUT commands agency leaders to take all the actions necessary to re -evaluate and, if necessary, revise or save integrity policies or procedures, or procedures, policies or procedures, January or procedures, or changes to policies or procedures, between a January 2021. January 20, 2025. Under the EO, Each Agency Head Must Promptly Revoke Any Organizational or Operational Changes, Designations, or Documents that were Issued or Enacté Pursuant to the Presidential Memorandum of January 27, 2021 (Restoring Trust in Govern Evidence-Based Policymaking), Which was revoked pursuant to eo 14154 and shall applicable agency operations in the manner and revert Applicable agency organization to the same form as would have existed in the absence of such changes, designations or documents.
In the updating of applicable scientific integrity policies, the OUT orders agencies to ensure that they:
- Encourage the open exchange of ideas;
- Provide a different or dissident point of view into account; And
- Protect employees from efforts to prevent or dissuade examination from alternative scientific opinions.
Agency must examine the agency measures taken between January 20, 2021 and January 20, 2025, including regulations, guidance documents, policies and scientific assessments, and take all appropriate measures, in accordance with the law, to guarantee alignment with the policies and requirements of the OC.
Scope and applicability
The policies and rules set out in the ECO apply to all the employees involved in the generation, the use, the interpretation or the communication of scientific information, regardless of the employment classification and decision -making of the agency. Agency leaders and employees must, as far as possible and in accordance with the applicable law, require that agency entrepreneurs adhere to these policies and rules as if they were agency employees. The policies and rules of the OP govern the use of science which informs the decisions of the agency, but the day notes that it “does not apply to the non -scientific aspects of the decision -making of agencies”.
Application and monitoring
The act requires that each agency manager establish internal processes to assess the alleged violations of the OC requirements and other applicable agency policies governing the generation, use, interpretation and communication of scientific information. These processes will be the responsibility and administered under the direction of a personal person designated by the agency head and make it possible to take appropriate measures to correct scientific information in response to violations, in accordance with the requirements and procedures of article 515 of the Act respecting the quality of information (IQA). According to the OE, the designated person designated can also transmit potential violations to the officials concerned of human resources for the discipline insofar as the potential violation also violates the agency’s applicable policies and procedures. The appointed appointed appointed can consult the appropriate civil servants with scientific expertise when establishing these processes.
Comment
There is no serious disagreement with the idea of leading and relying on quality sciences. The science of quality is non -partisan. The challenge is not with the objective, it is with the definition of the “best available science” because, as so many qualitative terms, it is in the eye of the spectator. Too often, individuals rely on favorite science. It is human nature to be more open to data that confirm your point of view and less receptive to data that refute your point of view. Scientists must remain open at different views and different data interpretations. To do otherwise undergoing science.
The objection to “secret science” must also be carefully explored. It can be used to reduce the value of quality studies, even if there are legitimate reasons for information in these studies to be maintained as confidential. Most of them should be appropriate that individual identities in an epidemiological study, for example, are legitimately confidential based on individual confidentiality problems. In a different case, the name of the sponsor which financed a study conducted in accordance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards is not necessary to assess the quality of the study. GLP protocols have been established to minimize the influence of a study sponsor on the result or interpretation of a study. GLP protocols are undoubtedly more protective of the best available science than peer exam. We can reasonably assume that the sponsor of a GLP study has a financial interest in this study, therefore knowing the specific identity of the sponsor does not add or harm the interpretation of another study. If the data is only valid if they are aligned with your views, you do not count on the best available science. We hope that the OP will be considered by agencies and departments, and that decisions will be based on the best available sciences.
We, like many others, finds it difficult to understand a commitment to science with the spectacular reduction of administration in the scientific expertise of the executive branch. These are two realities that are difficult to rationalize. Can the objective be achieved when the means are undermined? Federal scientific agencies were a bastion of exceptional sciences and scientists. Even if there are some examples of science generated by federal efforts (internal or through contracts and subsidies) which do not perfectly meet the standard of “best science available”, the solution can only be carried out thanks to better science.