Critique of the DOI Scientific Integrity Policy (305 DM 3, 1/28/11) August 8, 2012 Dr. Paul R. Houser, Hydrometeorologist

Transcription

1 Critique f the DOI Scientific Integrity Plicy (305 DM 3, 1/28/11) August 8, 2012 Dr. Paul R. Huser, Hydrmeterlgist Intrductin: I served as a member f the Department f Interir (DOI) and the Bureau f Reclamatin (BOR) Scientific Integrity Plicy writing team which assembled this plicy. After this Plicy was adpted I served as the BOR Scientific Integrity Officer (BSIO). In that capacity, I was the fficial wh prcessed a significant scientific integrity allegatin (Judge Wanger s September 2011 allegatins n Delta-Smelt issues). At the same time, I have persnally experienced that Plicy frm anther perspective. I was the subject f whistleblwer retaliatin related t scientific integrity. In this cnnectin, I authred and filed a scientific integrity allegatin under this Plicy cncerning Klamath Dam remval. Frm these experiences n bth sides f the divide, I am in a unique psitin t ffer a critique f the DOI s Scientific Integrity Plicy. I. Lack f Independence and Cnsistency in Allegatin Inquiry Prcess Sectin 3.8 crudely utlines the prcess fr inquiries int allegatins f scientific and schlarly miscnduct and cntains a number f flaws related t the frmality f the inquiry prcess, due prcess, independence, and accuntability that allws the Department t make up the prcedures as it likes. A. T Much Discretin. The inquiry prcess called fr in the Plicy is largely cntrlled by the DSIO and the Bureau Scientific Integrity Officer (BSIO) wh have the authrity t summarily dismiss the allegatin after reviewing the submitted infrmatin. If they determine that an investigatin is warranted, then they can perfrm fact finding, and cnvene a panel f experts t advise them n the merits f the investigatin. As written, these prcedures give t much discretin t the DSIO and the BSIO t decide the fate f the allegatin and the prcedures by which it shuld be investigated. These prcedures shuld be significantly imprved with apprpriate versight, checks and balances. B. Lack f Independence. The versight independence f the DSIO and the BSIO s are dubius since they reprt t the regular chain-f-cmmand. Additinally, the inquiry prcess calls fr invlving the subject s manager and Departmental leadership in the prcess with little regard fr cnflicts f interest. The plicy needs t establish a separate versight functin that des nt reprt t plitical appintees r is itself subject t Departmental plitics.

2 The DSIO, BSIO s and the Department leadership are naturally biased in favr f the Department, and against the allegatin: they naturally want the Department t be fund t uphld scientific integrity. Hwever, this bias can als purturb the inquiry prcess. One example: pre-written questins asked f expert panels can naturally lead the panel t a pre-determined cnclusin. DOI ften cnvenes these panels via sle-surce cntracts t cmpanies (e.g. ATKINS) that want repeat business; if the panel hired by the cmpany des nt find in favr f the Department, it may risk future business. Therefre, it is imperative that the Plicy directly address these biases and cnflicts f interest, and establish the DSIO and BSIO s with truly independent versight. C. Preeminence f Departmental Missin. The scientific integrity plicy creates cnflicts when science results d nt supprt the missin r agenda f the Department. In these situatins, scientific integrity shuld nt be verridden r bypassed. A special prvisin fr plitical appintees shuld be included in the Plicy that prevents them frm managing r influencing the scientific integrity plicy r prcess. The Plicy shuld explicitly state that plitical agendas and initiatives must be guided by scientific integrity, and that scientific integrity trumps Departmental plicies r plitical agendas. Sectin 3.7A states: I will act in the interest f the advancement f science and schlarship fr sund decisin making, by using the mst apprpriate, best available, high quality scientific and schlarly data and infrmatin t supprt the missin f the Department. (Emphasis added) By including t supprt the missin f the department in this statement, the Plicy explicitly places Departmental initiatives and plitical agendas abve scientific integrity. This statement must be drpped. D. Lack f Due Prcess. The Plicy s inquiry prcess des nt establish an explicit due prcess. Even standard scientific peer-review prcedures allw fr a dialgue t develp better infrmatin and reslve issues. The Plicy s fact finding and expert panel prcess shuld explicitly invlve the accuser and the accused in due prcess prceedings. E. N Penalties. The plicy des nt establish penalties fr scientific miscnduct, but rather leaves them up t the manager. A frmal establishment f penalties and accuntability f anyne fund guilty f scientific miscnduct r retaliatin/suppressin f scientific freedm shuld be explicitly included in the Plicy.

3 F. Plicy Incnsistencies. The Plicy ffers a brad cde f scientific and schlarly cnduct (Sectin 3.7), and separately ffers definitins f scientific and schlarly integrity (Sectin 3.5L), scientific and schlarly miscnduct (Sectin 3.5M), and prcedures fr reprting and reslving allegatins regarding a lss f scientific and schlarly integrity (Sectin 3.8). While there are sme ties between these plicy statements (fr example Sectin 3.7A(6) and Sectin 3.7B(2)), there are many guidelines ffered in the cde f cnduct, that when vilated are nt traceable t the prcedures fr reslving and reprting a lss f scientific and schlarly integrity (Sectin 3.8). Further, the respnsibilities sectins (Sectin 3.6G-I) ffers different guidance fr the same grups f peple that the cde f cnduct addresses (Sectin 3.7). These definitin and Plicy incnsistencies make the Plicy cnfusing and less enfrceable. These cnflicts need t be reslved, with explicit prcedures fr reprting and reslving any intentinal breach f the cde f cnduct and/r scientific and schlarly integrity (nt just plagiarism, falsificatin and fabricatin). II. Debilitating Lack f Transparency The Plicy wuld greatly benefit frm strng and explicit guarantees f transparency. This disturbing lack f penness can be fund thrugh the DOI scientific prcess encmpassed by the Plicy; A. Miscnduct Inquiries. The Plicy s inquiry prcess has n requirements fr public transparency r reprting. T gain the public trust, the Plicy shuld have explicit requirements fr transparency and reprting abut the way that the Plicy is being implemented, the reasn decisins were made, and scientific miscnduct crrectin actins. The Plicy shuld cmmit t publicly reprting alleged and cnfirmed lapses in scientific integrity, and develp and incrprate additinal mechanisms t enhance transparency in DOI s adherence t its Scientific Integrity Plicy. B. Open Science. The Plicy shuld explicitly grant all gvernment scientists the right t freely cmmunicate with the press and the public, withut fear f retributin, censrship r cnsequence. Sectin 3.4E directs the Department t develp a cmmunicatins plicy alng these lines, which was finally issued in March The Plicy shuld ensure that Federal science and decisin making is cmmunicated freely and transparently fr public scrutiny; this is an imprtant way t reveal and end plitical interference in science. Federal scientists shuld be perfrming and reprting n science that is in the public interest, and the

4 American public (wh pay fr this science) shuld be able t trust that its science is nt being perfrmed in supprt f a plitical agenda. Sectin 3.7A(2) states I will cmmunicate the results f scientific and schlarly activities clearly, hnestly, bjectively, thrughly, accurately, and in a timely manner. This statement shuld be mdified t explicitly include public cmmunicatin. C. Remve FOIA Gag. Civil servants and especially plitical appintees shuld be explicitly barred frm practices that intentinally avid creating publically discverable infrmatin under the Freedm f Infrmatin Act (FOIA). Fr example, it is cmmn practice fr gvernment managers t instruct their emplyees t nt send r create dcuments pertaining t plitically sensitive science issues. The Plicy shuld explicitly prhibit these practices, and categrize them as scientific miscnduct. Further, the March 2012 DOI Cmmunicatins Plicy frbids emplyees frm disclsing anything cvered by a FOIA exemptin, such as pre-decisinal infrmatin, and discurage specialists frm revealing any infrmatin nt previusly published r therwise publicly released by the Department. These rules effectively restrict scientists frm saying anything new, and significantly impede the develpment f a culture f penness and transparency with the public. D. Creating a Clear Scientific Recrd. Sectin 3.7A9(10) states: I will be diligent in creating, using, preserving, dcumenting, and maintaining scientific and schlarly cllectins, recrds, methdlgies, infrmatin, and data in accrdance with federal and Departmental plicy and prcedures. This shuld include prviding easy public access t this infrmatin. Similar mdificatins are needed fr Sectin 3.7B(3-4). The plicy shuld mandate the cmmunicatin f scientific and technlgical findings by including a clear explicatin f underlying assumptins; accurate cntextualizatin f uncertainties; and a descriptin f the prbabilities assciated with bth ptimistic and pessimistic prjectins, including best-case and wrstcase scenaris. This infrmatin, even if presented in very simple summaries, is critical t supprt gd decisin making. III. N Whistleblwer Prtectin The DOI plicy nly prvides a cursry mentin f whistleblwer prtectins, in directing the Department t prvide its emplyees infrmatin (3.4F). Current whistleblwer laws are cmplex, are stacked in the gvernments favr, and generally d nt prtect emplyees wh raise cncerns abut subjects that are part f their jbs. Until these plicies are imprved, DOI shuld develp and incrprate

5 additinal whistleblwer prtectins int the Scientific Integrity Plicy and prvide a mre detailed explanatin f prcedural safeguards t be instituted, in rder t adequately prtect agency scientists and emplyees wh reprt scientific miscnduct r plitical interference with their research. The plicy shuld explicitly grant scientists wh reprt plitical interference in their wrk prtectin frm retaliatin. Explicit whistleblwer prtectins must be included in the Plicy t ensure nt nly gvernment accuntability, but als prtectin fr agency emplyees wh exercise their free speech rights and wh facilitate the free flw f scientific and technlgical infrmatin t challenge institutinal illegality, abuse f pwer, r ther betrayals f the public trust. Gvernment scientists must have the assurance that their primary duty is t the American peple, and that they have an bligatin and full prtectin t uphld the public trust. Finally, the plicy shuld explicitly prtect the accused against retaliatin r censrship f all parties thrughut the allegatin and inquiry prcess. IV. Public and Peer Review The Plicy refers t reviews in several sectins, but never explicitly defines the review guidelines. The Plicy shuld include explicit public- and peer-review definitins and set guidelines fr review prcedures. These guidelines shuld establish the kinds f wrk that require review, the prcesses t ensure independent and cnflict-free reviews and prcedures t include due prcess (reviewer-reviewee iteratins) and public transparency in the review prcesses. There als needs t be an explicit respnse t review cmments, as many prgrams prfess that their prgrams r science are peer-reviewed as a justificatin fr their validity, withut ever taking actin r even respnding t review findings r suggestins. Finally, the Plicy shuld establish prcedures fr apprpriately handling differing scientific pinins and ensuring that these pinins are included in the final versins f scientific dcuments. V. Cnflict f Interest Sectin 3.5A ffers a brad definitin f cnflict f interest, which gives great leeway in subjective interpretatin, and des little t give practical examples r t enfrce cnflict f interest rules. The Plicy needs t explicitly define cnflict f interest, and give practical guidelines and rules. The cnflict f interest plicy als needs t have time guidelines, because cnflicts f interest d nt necessarily disappear nce a financial r prfessinal relatinship is cncluded. Fr example, an individual shuld be barred frm handling f scientific decisin making (peer-reviews, panels, funding, plicy, etc.) if they are cnflicted in amng the fllwing ways: Lifetime fr academic advisee/advisr relatinship. 5-Years fr scientific cllabratin n a prject, reprt, r paper.

6 lse 5-Years fr having wrked at the same institutin. 5-Years fr having had any financial r plitical interests, r ptential t gain r Any f the abve cncerning family members Mrever, intentinal vilatins f cnflict f interest rules shuld be cnsidered scientific miscnduct. The Plicy shuld g beynd a simple definitin f cnflict f interest by strengthening the disclsure f and reducing cnflict f interest amng emplyees and reviewers. Sectin 3.7B(1) states: I will place quality and bjectivity f scientific and schlarly activities and reprting f results ahead f persnal gain r allegiance t individuals r rganizatins. This statement implies a subjective and persnal managing f cnflicts f interest that culd be dangerus. This statement needs significant revisin t reprt n and remve emplyees frm real and perceived cnflicts f interest situatins. Sectin 3.7B(6) states: I will prvide cnstructive, bjective, and prfessinally valid peer review f the wrk f thers, free f any persnal r prfessinal jealusy, cmpetitin, nnscientific disagreement, r cnflict f interest. This statement als encurages a scientist t internally manage their wn cnflicts f interest. This statement needs t be mdified t direct the scientist t vluntarily declare any cnflicts f interest and excuse themselves frm the peer review. ###