The Trump administration is shifting its strategy on climate science, sparking significant debate and concern among experts. Previously, efforts were primarily focused on reducing climate-related programs and personnel. However, the administration’s latest moves aim to amplify voices challenging the scientific consensus on climate change, raising critical questions about the impact on federal policy.
Under the guise of restoring public trust, the administration is subtly altering federal guidelines, according to scientists. These changes could potentially place fringe theories on the same level as peer-reviewed research, thereby affecting a wide array of scientific fields beyond just climate science.
Gretchen Goldman, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, highlighted these concerns in a blog post, noting that while the new guidance appears standard, it contains language that undermines science-based policy. This approach mirrors tactics used by previous administrations and industries to weaken scientific integrity.
The foundation of the new strategy is a June 23 memorandum issued by Michael Kratsios, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It outlines how federal agencies should implement a May 23 executive order from President Trump, which calls for a new “gold standard” in federal science practices.
Among the directives, the emphasis on “reproducibility” has drawn significant scrutiny. While reproducibility is a cornerstone of scientific validation, it has also been leveraged to challenge solid research, according to Andrew Rosenberg of the University of New Hampshire. This focus could hinder important studies, especially those relying on unique conditions or sensitive data, such as air pollution research.
Another contentious point is the push for “viewpoint diversity” in scientific evaluations, which critics argue may legitimize climate denial and industry-biased research. This approach could create unnecessary uncertainty around established science, delaying necessary actions, Rosenberg warns.
David Michaels of the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health argued that these guidelines could endanger research that conflicts with the administration’s objectives, including studies on climate change and public health.
Despite criticism, Kratsios defended the administration’s actions in a June 24 opinion piece in Science, asserting that the guidelines aim to protect both scientific freedom and democratic governance from undue influence.
Impact on Federal Research
Besides scientific protocols, the executive order also empowers political appointees, potentially chilling federal research efforts. Agency heads are instructed to monitor and discipline any violations of the order, which could deter scientists from pursuing controversial or politically sensitive topics.
Some changes are already visible, as evidenced by NOAA’s decision to take down its climate.gov website to comply with the new guidelines. The administration also recently removed a key climate report website.
Kratsios has encouraged other research bodies to adopt similar practices, but Jacob Carter from the Union of Concerned Scientists criticized this stance, arguing that cutting funds and sidelining experts contradicts the administration’s claim of supporting rigorous science.
Original Story at www.eenews.net