The Battle for Scientific Integrity: What is our fate as federally-funded researchers?

While scholars have long debated whether truly impartial funding sources for research exist, many consider that the federal government comes the closest. Given the current environment, can our government still be considered an impartial source of funding for public health research?

I have always been skeptical of the supposed neutrality of government funding for our work. But my previous concerns now pale in comparison to the far more serious threats to scientific integrity that have emerged in recent weeks. These developments raise serious questions about the impartiality and independence of government funding for public health research. We must seriously consider the concessions we may be facing and the effect it will have on the pursuit of knowledge and on public health.

First, let’s define scientific integrity, so we’re all on the same page. Ironically our own Department of Health and Human Services published a Scientific Integrity Policy in September of 2024, which now feels like prehistory.

“Scientific integrity is the adherence to professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about science and scientific activities. Inclusivity, transparency, and protection from inappropriate influence are hallmarks of scientific integrity.” (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2024; pg 7)

If we use the criteria in this report to assess whether the HHS and other federal agencies like the NSF are likely to safeguard the scientific integrity of their funded research moving forward, current reporting strongly suggests no.

(1) Political Interference – The reported terminations of existing NIH awards for political reasons (e.g., here and here) and the “winnowing process” at NSF where investigators considered ‘out of compliance with executive orders’ are being notified to modify their projects are especially troubling.

(2) Restrictions on Scientific Communication – Reports of restrictions to scientific travel, manuscript retractions, and website scrubbing present tremendous barriers to transparency and the free flow of scientific information.

(3) Self-Censorship – Concerns about future funding have resulted in researchers modifying their proposals to avoid certain terms deemed politically undesirable or shelving grants on specific priority populations. This will have a chilling effect on scientific inquiry, inclusivity and the pursuit of health equity.

I have a few violations to scientific integrity to report. Where do I go for that now?

These developments introduce several threats to the scientific integrity and validity of federally-funded research, such as compromised research quality that fails to build upon the existing evidence base, a reduced (or erased) focus on health equity significantly hindering progress on a fundamental goal of public health, and further eroding trust in our public health systems and research findings. These current threats require our vigilance to ensure an unyielding commitment to rigorous, ethical, and unbiased research.

Years ago, I had a unique experience working as a research associate on a federally-funded grant. My colleague and I wrote a paper where the final paragraph included discussion that was controversial. When we submitted the draft manuscript to the funder, a staff member — lucky for us not the boss – suggested that our discussion might need to be changed prior to submitting the manuscript for peer review. My hackles instantly raised.

Now, remember, I was new. I wasn’t the boss. But I was furious. I would have started designing my protest sign if it weren’t for the senior staff member who stepped in. She reminded the group that the federal government was not in a position to censor their scientists because of, as you might expect, scientific integrity policies.

The situation has now changed. We are entering a world where scientific integrity policies may carry little weight. Think about what that could mean for the practice of research. Will we be forced to abandon research on populations experiencing health inequities? Will federal funders require periodic review of our data collection instruments or data analyses to be sure they aren’t out of compliance with executive orders? Will requirements be imposed on manuscripts requiring a project officer’s approval prior to submitting for peer review? Will we be asked to sign a gag order?

Hard no.

How do we continue to do work that builds upon the current scientific knowledge, that adheres to best practices in our respective disciplines, that is ethical and principled, and that centers health equity? While the current situation is more than troubling, there are steps that we can take. We can advocate, and loudly, for the enforcement of the HHS scientific integrity policy. We can explore non-governmental sources of funding that are committed to transparency, independence, and health equity. We can seek legal support and guidance as we navigate the current environment. And we can commit to transparent reporting by documenting our research processes, including any and all instances of political interference.

The threats to scientific knowledge and public health are too great to not act.