Latest news with #GoldStandardScience
CNN
4 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Two senior NOAA officials were just placed on leave. Both led ‘Sharpiegate' inquiry
Two high-ranking officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with a connection to the likely incoming NOAA administrator were placed on administrative leave Thursday, according to two former NOAA employees familiar with the situation and one current agency official. While the reasoning behind the move is not clear, the two officials affected — Steve Volz, who heads NOAA's satellites division, and Jeff Dillen, deputy NOAA general counsel — led the investigation into whether NOAA's scientific integrity policies were violated during the so-called Sharpiegate scandal of President Donald Trump's first term. 'It's an interesting coincidence that less than a week before Neil Jacob's senate committee vote, the two dedicated career civil servants who investigated him for scientific integrity violations around Sharpiegate were dismissed from service,' one former NOAA official told CNN. The inquiry found then-acting NOAA administrator Neil Jacobs and another NOAA official violated the agency's scientific integrity policy by backing Trump's hand-drawn version of the forecast for 2019's Hurricane Dorian. Trump's modification to the National Weather Service's forecast, drawn in a Sharpie, suggested the storm would hit Alabama. Hurricane Dorian did not strike Alabama, instead making landfall in Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, on its northward track along the East Coast. A copy of a letter informing Volz he was being placed on leave references an 'investigation' into his 'recent conduct,' though NOAA sources did not know what that may refer to. The letter came from acting NOAA administrator Laura Grimm. It is not clear if Dillen's letter also references an investigation. The Sharpiegate scandal appears to be the only significant event that links the two men, though the personnel moves could be coincidental. CNN has reached out to NOAA for comment. Jacobs has been nominated to become NOAA administrator in Trump's current term, with a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee vote on his nomination scheduled to take place July 30. Volz, who is the second-highest ranking civilian at NOAA and its longest-serving assistant administrator, has also been involved in responding to Trump's 'Gold Standard Science' executive order that may cause NOAA to change its scientific integrity policies. He has also been steering the development of a multibillion-dollar next-generation series of NOAA weather satellites. NOAA's satellites division is at the center of debates over how much to rely on the private sector for space-based weather observations versus building often more expensive public satellite constellations. Volz has been a major proponent of continuing to rely mainly on NOAA owned and operated satellites, while entering into data purchase agreements with private companies as well. That work will now fall to his replacement. Volz and Dillen's personnel moves come at a precarious time for NOAA, when staff cuts and the proposal for steep budget reductions have lowered morale and led to questions about agency readiness for predicting and responding to extreme weather events. Some of these questions came to the forefront during the recent Texas flooding disaster due to reductions in National Weather Service personnel.
Fox News
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
White House office tells agencies to apply 'Gold Standard Science' to depoliticize research, restore trust
EXCLUSIVE: The White House Office of Science and Technology on Monday directed federal agencies to implement "gold standard science" principles to depoliticize science and restore public trust, Fox News Digital has learned. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios sent guidance to federal research agencies Monday morning, incorporating President Donald Trump's executive order on "Restoring Gold Standard Science." Fox News Digital exclusively obtained the guidance sent to federal agencies. President Trump, in May, signed an executive order to restore "Gold Standard Science" as the cornerstone of federal scientific research. "Gold Standard Science" is "reproducible, transparent and falsifiable," according to the order. It is also "subject to unbiased peer review; clear about errors and uncertainties; skeptical of assumptions; collaborative and interdisciplinary; accepting of negative results as positive outcomes; and free from conflicts of interest." The executive order reinstated "the scientific integrity policies" of the first Trump administration and "ensures that science is no longer manipulated or misused to justify political ends." "President Trump's Gold Standard Science EO will transform the conduct and management of federal science, from research design to public communication, in order to strengthen scientific inquiry, rebuild public trust, and ensure the U.S. continues to be the global leader in rigorous, evidence-based science," Kratsios told Fox News Digital. "But federal agencies are only one part of our nation's research ecosystem." Kratsios added, "American universities, scientific journals, industry and philanthropic leaders all have a crucial role in improving the overall quality of research, and we encourage this executive action to serve as a model for the entire scientific enterprise." Kratsios sent the memo to federal agencies Monday morning to provide guidance to federal departments and agencies on implementing gold standard science "in the conduct and management of all aspects of their scientific activities, from research design to public communication." "By adopting these standards, agencies will strengthen scientific inquiry, rebuild public trust, and ensure the United States continues as the global leader in rigorous, evidence-based science," the memo states. Kratsios said that "Gold Standard Science" represents a "commitment to the highest standards of scientific integrity, defined by nine core tenets: reproducible; transparent; communicative of error and uncertainty; collaborative and interdisciplinary; skeptical of its findings and assumptions; structured for falsifiability of hypotheses; subject to unbiased peer review; accepting of negative results as positive outcomes; and without conflicts of interest." "These tenets ensure that federally-supported research and research used in federal decision-making is transparent, rigorous, and impactful, enabling federal decisions to be informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available," Kratsios wrote in the guidance. But "Gold Standard Science" is not limited to science, Kratsios said, saying that it is critical for tackling complex challenges in energy innovation and national security as well. "In an age of rapid technological progress and heightened public scrutiny, federally-funded and federally-performed science, and its use in Federal decision-making, must be beyond reproach," he wrote. As for conducting science "without conflicts of interest," Kratsios said it is imperative to ensure that "research is designed, executed, reviewed, and reported free from financial, personal, or institutional influences that could bias outcomes or undermine objectivity." "This approach is important for generating trustworthy and credible new knowledge, as it upholds scientific integrity, fosters public confidence, and ensures that results reflect evidence rather than external agendas," the memo states. "Maintaining freedom from conflicts of interest requires researchers, reviewers, and managers to disclose all relevant affiliations, funding sources, and relationships relevant to the science conducted, adhering to stringent ethical standards supported by strong institutional oversight, transparent reporting systems, and independent expert review mechanisms." Kratsios said agencies must "prioritize conducting and managing scientific research free from conflicts of interest to advance unbiased science," and must "require disclosure of all relevant conflicts of interest by researchers, reviewers, and agency officials involved in the funding or performance of Federal research." "These efforts include requiring comprehensive, standardized disclosure of all financial, personal, or institutional interests in research proposals, publications, peer and merit reviews, and data repositories, with clear and standardized protocols to identify, mitigate, and manage potential biases," the memo states. "Agencies should mandate the use of independent oversight approaches and enforce strict conflict-of-interest policies." Agencies have 60 days to outline "Gold Standard Science" implementation plans, including plans for training and resources to ensure agency personnel understand the new policy, and the use of artificial intelligence-driven tools when practical. After Trump signed the May executive order to restore gold standard science, a senior White House official said there had been a decline in "disruptive research" and investments in biomedical research, along with "serious cases" of fraud and misconduct and the inability to reproduce scientific methods for the purpose of restoring public trust. The official also blamed policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and "woke DEI initiatives" for endangering the public's trust in government scientists. Now-retired National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci was repeatedly denounced for flip-flopping and obfuscating during his time engineering the federal response to COVID-19, leading many, particularly on the right, to disregard and dismiss the legitimacy of federal health authorities outright. That order cites the fact the Biden administration included political edits from teachers' unions in school-reopening guidance, instead of leading with any scientific evidence. Meanwhile, in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital in April, Kratsios echoed Trump, saying the U.S. is in the "golden age" and that this special moment in time is "underpinned by unbelievable science and technology."
Forbes
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Trump Executive Orders Target Precautionary Nuclear, Climate Rules
Two recent Trump executive orders (EOs), issued on May 23, 2025, contain detailed legal language, but behind these technical terms lie significant policy shifts confronting the precautionary principle. The orders—Restoring Gold Standard Science and Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)—directly challenge longstanding assumptions used in regulations. Specifically, the Gold Standard Science order emphasizes transparency in assumptions, instructing government employees not to rely unnecessarily on highly unlikely or overly precautionary scenarios. The second executive order calls on the NRC to 'adopt science-based radiation limits,' rather than relying on precautionary safety models that have 'tried to insulate Americans from the most remote risks without appropriate regard for the severe domestic and geopolitical costs of such risk aversion.' These changes have wide-ranging implications for environmental and climate science, as well as for the energy sector. Consider some examples from the EOs to see how scientific data impacts regulatory decisions. NOAA's fisheries division has the authority to issue permits allowing lobster fisheries to operate. The issue at hand is that lobster fishing gear can cause the endangered North Atlantic right whale to become entangled in fishing gear, prompting the agency to prescribe a switch to ropeless fishing methods, reducing entanglement risk by 98%. However, this method involves very expensive gear upgrades, which would render the lobster industry uncompetitive. NOAA's recommendation was based primarily on whale birth rate data from 2010 to 2018, a period during which birth rates were relatively low. Data from periods before or after those dates, when whale birth rates were higher, were not considered. The Maine lobster fisheries took the issue to court. Initially, the ruling favored the regulator, but the decision was later overturned by the D.C. Court of Appeals, which concluded that 'the agency's decision to seek out the worst-case scenario skewed its approach to the evidence.' A similar precautionary approach is seen in climate policy. The EO specifically critiques the use of the worst-case warming scenario known as Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5, which predicts an increase in temperatures by about 8.5°F by the end of the century. Although we do not know precisely how much temperatures will rise, current science suggests that RCP 8.5 is at the high end of potential warming scenarios, and more moderate outcomes are far more likely. Unless updated by the best available science, the EO directs agencies not to base regulatory decisions on such extreme scenarios. The nuclear EO also criticized the existing precautionary approach, asserting that a 'myopic policy of minimizing even trivial risks ignores the reality that substitute forms of energy production also carry risk, such as pollution with potentially deleterious health effects.' The cost of driving risks to zero is high but often invisible—like an iceberg. What we see is the agency ostensibly protecting public health by reducing radiation exposure. What remains unseen is how such policies stifle technological advances and limit our access to clean, reliable baseload power from nuclear plants. While the U.S. currently operates the largest nuclear fleet globally, only two reactors have begun commercial operations in recent decades. Beyond domestic impacts, this trend has clear geopolitical implications as the U.S. concedes nuclear leadership to nations such as China, Russia, and South Korea. Does this mean we do not care about right whales, climate impacts, or potential radiation exposure? This is a common fallacy perpetuated by those seeking to drive risks as close to zero as possible. Risk reductions always come at a cost. Just as it doesn't make sense to reduce pollution to zero (since we still want access to goods and services), it also doesn't make sense to drive all risks to zero. Rather than relying on worst-case scenarios, it is more prudent to find a middle ground and act based on the most likely scenarios, which usually come at a significantly lower cost. This is not to suggest malicious intent by regulatory agencies. Rather, they are following decades-old premises rooted in precautionary principles that significantly slow permitting processes, despite occasional successes. This week, the NRC approved NuScale's design for a 77-megawatt, 6-module small modular reactor plant. While the agency employs knowledgeable public servants, they operate under the stifling dictates of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation exposure and the "as low as reasonably achievable" standard. The LNT model assumes every bit of radiation is harmful and thus must be minimized, disregarding the cell's capacity to repair itself after minor radiation exposure. In reality, people living in areas with naturally higher background radiation don't show the health problems that current radiation safety models predict they should have. The executive order explicitly states that these models 'lack sound scientific basis.' Will agencies respond positively to the president's directives? This is not the first time the NRC has been asked to reconsider the LNT model. Nuclear pundit Jack Devanney pointed out that "the NRC has been asked to reconsider LNT at least three times. The NRC pondered the issue for three years before proclaiming—to no one's surprise—that it was sticking with LNT.' In other words, the nuclear EO might lack sufficient teeth to force the agencies to change their standard operating practices. Yet, as Adam Stein, Director for Nuclear Energy Innovation at the Breakthrough Institute, put it, "the executive orders say the quiet part out loud." Stein also noted that because the NRC was merely asked to reconsider rather than explicitly abandon its precautionary models, the EOs represented a "big missed opportunity to finally align the NRC with a modern, risk-informed approach." Finally, the precautionary principle is widespread not just federally, but at the state level as well. For example, the Indian Point nuclear power plant, which previously supplied New York City with power, was ordered to shut down due to concerns about the health of Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River—not because of radiation concerns, but rather fears that cooling water from the nuclear plant could harm sturgeon eggs. The worst-case scenario was that fish populations might be damaged. Ultimately, it was New York State's energy security, emissions profile, and local employment that were harmed. In the end, obscure scientific concepts drive many regulatory decisions, which are often justified under the guise of protecting public health or the environment. A gold standard in science means all scientific decisions are transparent, clearly outlining assumptions, and ensuring that while worst-case scenarios are considered, they do not solely drive our policy-making.
The Guardian
29-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Trump's new ‘gold standard' rule will destroy American science as we know it
Science is under siege. On Friday evening, the White House released an executive order called Restoring Gold Standard Science. At face value, this order promises a commitment to federally funded research that is 'transparent, rigorous, and impactful' and policy that is informed by 'the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available'. But hidden beneath the scientific rhetoric is a plan that would destroy scientific independence in the US by giving political appointees the latitude to dismiss entire bodies of research and punish researchers who fail to fall in line with the current administration's objectives. In other words: this is Fool's-Gold Standard Science. According to the order, 'Gold Standard Science means science conducted in a manner that is: (i) reproducible; (ii) transparent; (iii) communicative of error and uncertainty; (iv) collaborative and interdisciplinary; (v) skeptical of its findings and assumptions; (vi) structured for falsifiability of hypotheses; (vii) subject to unbiased peer review; (viii) accepting of negative results as positive outcomes; and (ix) without conflicts of interest.' The order mimics the language of an active reform movement in science to increase rigor and transparency of research – a movement commonly called the open science movement, to which some of us are contributors. Science is, by nature, a continuous work in progress; constantly self-scrutinized and always looking for opportunities to improve. We should all be able to celebrate any administration's investment in improving the openness, integrity, and reproducibility of research. But, with this executive order, we cannot. Instead of being about open science, it grants administration-aligned political appointees the power to designate any research as scientific misconduct based on their own 'judgment' and includes the power to punish the scientists involved accordingly; this would weaponize government counter to the public interest. The consequences of state-dictated science can be catastrophic. When Trofim Lysenko, a researcher who denied the reality of genetic inheritance and natural selection, won favor with Joseph Stalin and took control of agriculture in the Soviet Union, thousands of scientists who disagreed with him were fired, imprisoned, or killed. His disastrous agricultural prescriptions ultimately led to famines that killed millions in the USSR and in China. Science does not proceed by sequentially establishing unassailable conclusions, but rather by steadily accumulating numerous lines of evidence, scrutinizing its weaknesses, and pursuing additional evidence. Almost any study, any source of evidence, any conclusion, falls short of meeting every aspect of the White House's list of best practices. This has nothing to do with laziness, let alone misconduct by individual scientists; it's simply a consequence of the fact that science is difficult. Scientists constantly grapple with uncertainty, and nevertheless can ultimately arrive at robust, valid conclusions, such as the fact that vaccines do not cause autism, and that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet and wreaking havoc on our climate. Under the terms of the executive order, political appointees loyal to the president can willfully find justification to label any research finding as scientific misconduct, and then penalize the researchers involved accordingly. This administration has already appropriated the language of open science to assert control over and deal heavy blows to the scientific ecosystem of the United States – including cancelling thousands of active research grants in climate science, misinformation and disinformation, vaccines, mental health, women's health, LGBTQ+ health, and stem education. Calls to 'revisit' decades of work that establish vaccine safety beyond a shadow of a doubt 'because the only way you can get good science is through replication', and demands for unethical vaccine clinical trial practices and additional data, further echo the bad-faith adoption of open science language. Trump has also advanced a congressional budget calling for massive cuts to federal spending on research and development and levied significant retaliation against universities that have not fallen in line with his demands. He has gone so far as to propose a rule change by the office of personnel management that would install policy police at all levels of federal agencies, converting thousands of employees into presidential appointees who can be summarily fired without due process for any arbitrary political reason. This new executive order raises the concern that many of our best scientists would be targeted in Lysenkoist purges. Meanwhile, the threat of such actions is already having a chilling effect on all scientists. Science is the most important long-term investment for humanity. Interference in the scientific process by political arbiters stifles scientists' freedom of speech and thought. Science depends on unfettered speech – free and continuous discussion of data and ideas. We, like the rest of the scientific community, aspire to achieve greater openness, integrity, and reproducibility of research to accelerate discovery, advance treatments, and foster solutions to meet society's greatest challenges. Meeting that objective will not occur by centralizing power over science and scientists according to the whims of any political administration. We see this executive order for what it is: an attempt to sell America's future for pyrite. Colette Delawalla is a PhD candidate at Emory University and executive director of Stand Up for Science. Victor Ambros is a 2024 Nobel laureate in physiology or medicine at the Chan Medical School, University of Massachusetts. Carl Bergstrom is professor of biology at the University of Washington. Carol Greider is a 2009 Nobel laureate in medicine and distinguished professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Michael Mann is the presidential distinguished professor of earth and environmental science and director of the center for science, sustainability, and the media at the University of Pennsylvania. Brian Nosek is executive director of the Center for Open Science and professor of psychology at the University of Virginia
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
FDA's latest MAHA move would wipe out kids' fluoride prescriptions as health risk evidence mounts
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced Tuesday it is taking a step toward "ending outdated practices" related to children's health and will begin removing ingestible fluoride prescription drug products for kids from the market. Health and Human Services and the FDA are "taking bold action to protect America's children by initiating the removal of unapproved, ingestible fluoride prescription drug products from the market," Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon told Fox News Digital Tuesday. "These fluoride prescription drug products, given to infants and toddlers, have never been approved by the FDA and pose real risks to developing children — including harm to the gut microbiome, potential thyroid dysfunction, weight gain, and even reduced IQ. This is not just a public health issue — it's a moral issue." "This marks another step toward delivering on our Make America Healthy Again promise — by ending outdated practices and putting Gold Standard Science at the center of children's health," he added. The FDA announced earlier Tuesday it had begun the initial steps of removing "concentrated ingestible fluoride prescription drug products for children from the market." Fluoride is frequently used to protect teeth from decay and cavities. Desantis Signs Bill Banning Fluoride Additives In Florida Public Water: 'Hydrate, Not Medicate' Read On The Fox News App Ingestible fluoride, such as tablets prescribed to kids at high-risk for cavities, was never approved by the FDA, according to its chief, Marty Makary, and have been "shown to alter the gut microbiome," as well as possible association "between fluoride and thyroid disorders, weight gain and possibly decreased IQ." Ingestible fluoride is swallowed, and differs from other fluoride products, such as toothpaste bolstered with fluoride. Utah Bans Fluoride From Public Drinking Water, Aligning With Maha Movement Makary said in a Tuesday press release that children can avoid heavy sugar intake to dodge cavities instead of "altering a child's microbiome." The gut microbiome is the ecosystem of microorganisms that live in a person's intestines. "The best way to prevent cavities in children is by avoiding excessive sugar intake and good dental hygiene, not by altering a child's microbiome," Makary said in the press release. "For the same reason that fluoride may kill bacteria on teeth, it may also kill intestinal bacteria important for a child's health." "I am instructing our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research to evaluate the evidence regarding the risks of systemic fluoride exposure from FDA-regulated pediatric ingestible fluoride prescription drug products to better inform parents and the medical community on this emerging area. When it comes to children, we should err on the side of safety." Fluoride Exposure Linked To 'Detrimental Effects' On Health Of Pregnant Women, Infants Nixon told Fox News Digital that HHS and the FDA will launch a full safety review, including with public input, as health leaders work to finalize details of the plan by Oct. 31. "The American people deserve transparency and accountability," Nixon said. "The Department will issue new guidelines promoting safe, effective dental hygiene without compromising gut health." HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. added in the press release that "ending the use of ingestible fluoride is long overdue." Rfk Jr. Calls For Removal Of Fluoride From Drinking Water, Sparking Debate "I'm grateful to Commissioner Makary for his leadership on this vital issue — one that directly safeguards the health and development of our children," Kennedy said. "This decision brings us one step closer to delivering on President Trump's promise to Make America Healthy Again." Kennedy posted to X following President Donald Trump's election win in November 2024 that the Trump administration "will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water" upon Inauguration Day. Children Exposed To Higher Fluoride Levels Found To Have Lower Iqs, Study Reveals "Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease. President @realDonaldTrump and First Lady @Melaniatrump want to Make America Healthy Again," he continued. Trump told the media shortly after Kennedy's X post that such a plan to remove fluoride from water systems "sounds OK to me." First State To Ban Fluoride In Drinking Water Will Heed Maha Movement's Call To Action Utah became the first state in the nation to ban fluoride from public water systems in May, while Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill May 6 banning fluoride additives to the state's public water supply. That law will take effect July 1. "Jamming fluoride in the water supply … is essentially a forced medication," DeSantis said during a news conference May 6 in Tallahassee, Florida. "At the end of the day, we should all agree that people deserve informed consent." Amid states moving to ban fluoride from water systems specifically, local dentists and critics of the move claim it will hurt residents who rely on the fluoride to bolster dental article source: FDA's latest MAHA move would wipe out kids' fluoride prescriptions as health risk evidence mounts
