President Donald Trump’s administration last week rescinded a National Institutes of Health (NIH) policy designed to shield federal scientists from political interference. The scientific integrity policy, adopted under former President Joe Biden, was partly a response to Trump’s first administration, which was criticized for attempting to stifle scientists and distort research findings that conflicted with Trump’s political agenda.
At Biden’s request, NIH and its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), proposed separate draft policies in 2023, drawing mixed reactions from government watchdog groups. Final versions posted in 2024 removed some language that had drawn criticism, including how agency scientists should communicate with the public, and addressed other concerns. Still, some critics worried the policies didn’t go far enough to protect scientists from political meddling and included only vague penalties for scientific integrity violations, such as suppressing the release of scientific research for political reasons or knowingly relying on flawed studies that do not represent the current state of scientific knowledge.
On 28 March, the Trump administration formally withdrew the NIH policy, stating in the NIH Guide that the move was designed “to ensure alignment” with administration priorities. Among other instructions, the now-rescinded policy directed NIH staff to support researchers in the LGBTQIA+ community and stated that “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) are integral components of the entire scientific process.” Both of those goals run afoul of Trump’s recent executive orders, which have required agencies to terminate support for such activities. “The Biden administration weaponized NIH’s scientific integrity policy to inject harmful DEI and gender ideology into research,” HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon says.
Going forward, NIH will adhere to the broader scientific integrity policy used by HHS, the guide notice says.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a nonprofit group that has pushed for federal agencies to adopt strong scientific integrity policies, has criticized the rescission. It argues NIH research requires tailored protections not offered by the HHS policy, which does not refer to DEI—and that rescinding the NIH policy sets a dangerous precedent. “Removing this policy is a deliberate weakening of the structures that protect public health, the scientific process and the American peoples’ access to truth,” Jennifer Jones, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS, said in a statement.
The loss of the NIH policy also means the loss of NIH-specific infrastructure and processes designed to address scientific integrity violations, says Liz Borkowski of the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health at George Washington University. Under the terminated policy, scientists could have informal consultations with the designated NIH scientific integrity official (SIO), whose familiarity with the inner workings of the agency may have made it easier for them to recognize problems. NIH scientists may not feel comfortable raising concerns with the HHS SIO, she argues, making potential violations more likely to fly under the radar.
Borkowski fears HHS and NIH could face scientific integrity concerns in the near future—and may have already committed violations. For example, she notes HHS officials have buried a report on measles and recently directed NIH to conduct a study on the long-discredited link between vaccines and autism. It will be led by vaccine skeptic David Geier, who has a long history of publishing methodologically flawed research to support conclusions. Scientific integrity policies are supposed to deter such practices by providing a mechanism for agency employees to raise objections without fear of retaliation by political appointees.
More: https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-administration-quashes-nih-scientific-integrity-policy
