Judge Murphy seemingly agreed, saying that the vaccine committee had historically made decisions via rigorous review of scientific evidence, 'a method scientific in nature and codified into law through procedural requirements,' but in this new iteration, 'unfortunately, the government has disregarded those methods and thereby undermined the integrity of its actions.'
After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez for refusing what her lawyers called 'the dangerous politicization of science,' Newsom to help modernize California's public health system. He also gave a job to Debra Houry, the agency's former chief science and medical officer, who had resigned in protest hours after Monarez's firing.
In 2016, Brian Wansink wrote a blog post that prompted scientific sleuths to investigate his work. They found evidence of data manipulation, and, after several news articles and two investigations by his institution, he would found to have committed misconduct, as defined by Cornell University. His work had been used to inform US policy around food, much of which has now been thrown into question.
The executive order promises to ensure that "federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available." In practice, however, it gives political appointees authority to define scientific integrity and decide which evidence counts and how it should be interpreted.
We try to point out those bad papers because we still believe in science and want to make science better. But, I am very worried about how the work we do in pointing out bad papers is currently being misused, or even weaponized, to convince the general public that all science is bad.
This order promises a commitment to federally funded research that is transparent, rigorous, and impactful, but risks undermining scientific independence by politicizing research evaluation.
Imagine you're trying to pass an exam that has a particular pass rate, and you add as many questions as you want. You see which ones you got right, and you remove the ones that you got wrong. That's basically what they're doing.
The acting U.S. attorney's letter to CHEST represents an alarming trend towards authoritarianism in science, signaling a government attempt to control research and media.
