New EPA Scientific Integrity Plan Lacks Integrity

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


It took the Obama administration almost two years to issue a new scientific integrity plan, a government-wide policy to ensure that decisions are based on science, not politics, and to allow scientists to do their jobs without fear of intimidation. The administration promised the plan would go a long way toward “restoring scientific integrity to government decision making” after the Bush years, during which scientists were silenced and their work was ignored or heavily edited.

When the Office of Science and Technology Policy finally issued the plan last December a year and a half overdue, it was really more of a framework that set a minimum government-wide standard and then directed individual agencies to write their own policies. On Friday afternoon—the last day before the deadline—the Environmental Protection Agency issued its plan.

The draft plan aims to “enhance scientific integrity throughout EPA.” Its intent is to make sure both that scientists and engineers within the agency are operating with integrity and following ethics rules, but also to ensure that they are able to operate “free from political influence”—i.e., they’re not being forced to do things because of some manager or a political appointee. The plan is open for public comment through September 6.

The watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), though, called the standards “pathetically weak” in a press release on Monday. The group, which often represents government employees tangled up in exactly this type of problem, say the rules don’t do enough to prohibit political interference with science, promote transparency or ensure that whistleblowers are protected within the agency.

“EPA has put forward by far the weakest scientific integrity rules of any agency. In many ways, it is a big step backward,” said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch in the release. “Under EPA’s plan to protect scientific integrity, only its scientists can be punished for misconduct as there are no firm rules against managers manipulating or masking technical work and no mechanism to enforce rules if they existed.”

The group was also critical of the policy that the Department of Interior issued last year.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest