Politics

/

ArcaMax

Commentary: You cannot 'restore' high scientific standards if they are already in place

Sheldon H. Jacobson, Tribune News Service on

Published in Op Eds

President Donald Trump’s executive order “Restoring Gold Standard Science” provides a directive to restore a higher standard for scientific research and discovery. Yet despite the concerns it raises, the very standards that it describes already exist and are widely applied.

Section one of the order describes why the administration believes that it is needed. Some of it focuses on the responses to the COVID pandemic. Many now agree that many facets of the response were off-base. The reason for this is much more than the biases noted in this section.

Scientific discovery often takes thoughtful reflection, which can be time consuming, fraught with missteps that guide and refocus the research process. The challenge during the COVID pandemic is that real-time policies could not be evaluated as quickly as the public health needs demanded. The net effect was less than ideal solutions and outcomes. With 20-20 hindsight, it is easy now to throw those who were offering guidance “under the bus.”

A parallel to this situation can be found when US Airways flight 1549 lost both its engines upon takeoff from NYC’s LaGuardia Airport due to a bird strike. Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger was forced to use his best judgment and experience to safely land the airplane in the Hudson River. An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board initially found that the airplane could have landed safely at LaGuardia or Teterboro airports. However, when a 35 second delay was inserted into the decision-making process, paralleling the real-life situation, testing on flight simulators demonstrated that Captain Sullenberger’s decision was indeed the right one, saving countless lives.

Much of what the executive order espouses is already embedded in the scientific method, a systematic approach to discovering new knowledge. Whether this knowledge is acquired through data collection and analysis, by physical experimentation, or using mathematical analysis based on axiomatic principles, the result is new understandings and insights.

Built into the scientific method is the need for reproducibility. This means that if one group of researchers makes a discovery following principles using the scientific method, then another group of researchers who follow the same principles should be able to make the same discovery.

The scientific method also allows for incremental discovery, whereby researchers can build upon known results to obtain new insights or stronger conclusions.

Yet new knowledge can only provide benefit if it can be widely disseminated, ideally in archival journals. This is where the peer review process comes into play. There are estimated to be more than 30,000 academic journals in existence, not all of which provide equal value. The quality of the editorial board and the integrity of the review processes are critical to assess the novelty, correctness, and value of the research being reported.

There are obstacles to such research-archiving. Predatory journals provide rapid dissemination with thin review processes. Their goal is to collect publication fees from unsuspecting researchers who wish to disseminate their findings quickly and with little resistance. Often, researchers early in their careers, or more seasoned researchers whose work is not meeting the peer-review standard of well-respected journals, fall prey to these.

The internet also provides an avenue for dissemination. For example, ArXiv allows researchers to post their unpublished manuscripts prior to peer review, allowing them to lay claim to their ideas. It also permits unscrupulous researchers to take others’ ideas and publish them as their own in peer-reviewed journals, creating a wild west environment for research dissemination.

The executive order also cites a growing number of publication retractions. In 2023, more than 10,000 papers were retracted from research journals. But a deeper dive into these numbers suggests that the problem in the U.S. is not as severe as the executive order suggests. Of the 10,000 papers retracted, 80 percent were from a single publisher.

 

Although the absolute number of papers retracted appears large, the retraction rate is under 0.25 percent, or less than one in 400 papers.

Then there is the issue of where the authors of the retracted papers reside. The U.S. is not in the top eight, with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, and China topping the list. Even then, the retraction rate in each of these countries was below one in 330 papers.

Scientific research is messy. The scientific method provides guardrails around it. There is nothing wrong with what the executive order espouses. Yet much of what it includes is already imbedded in the scientific method and the research integrity principals that are widely adhered to in academia, industry and government.

However, what is “good for the goose must also be good for the gander.” That means any reports issued by the administration — such as the recent MAHA report by the Department of Health and Human Services— should adhere to the same standards.

This places a high standard for any policies put forth by the administration that affect health, economics, technology, and science. It also opens the door for greater scrutiny of such policies and encourages ample feedback from the academic community, who are under currently attack by the administration.

What the Restoring Gold Standard Science executive order actually does is give academic, industry, and government researchers the opportunity to take a victory lap, given that much of it outlines the ideal that we all already aspire to.

____

Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a computer science professor in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. As a data scientist, he uses his expertise in risk-based analytics to address problems in public policy. This piece was originally published by The Hill.

____


©2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

 

Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Related Channels

The ACLU

ACLU

By The ACLU
Amy Goodman

Amy Goodman

By Amy Goodman
Armstrong Williams

Armstrong Williams

By Armstrong Williams
Austin Bay

Austin Bay

By Austin Bay
Ben Shapiro

Ben Shapiro

By Ben Shapiro
Betsy McCaughey

Betsy McCaughey

By Betsy McCaughey
Bill Press

Bill Press

By Bill Press
Bonnie Jean Feldkamp

Bonnie Jean Feldkamp

By Bonnie Jean Feldkamp
Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas

By Cal Thomas
Christine Flowers

Christine Flowers

By Christine Flowers
Clarence Page

Clarence Page

By Clarence Page
Danny Tyree

Danny Tyree

By Danny Tyree
David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi

By David Harsanyi
Debra Saunders

Debra Saunders

By Debra Saunders
Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager

By Dennis Prager
Dick Polman

Dick Polman

By Dick Polman
Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson

By Erick Erickson
Froma Harrop

Froma Harrop

By Froma Harrop
Jacob Sullum

Jacob Sullum

By Jacob Sullum
Jamie Stiehm

Jamie Stiehm

By Jamie Stiehm
Jeff Robbins

Jeff Robbins

By Jeff Robbins
Jessica Johnson

Jessica Johnson

By Jessica Johnson
Jim Hightower

Jim Hightower

By Jim Hightower
Joe Conason

Joe Conason

By Joe Conason
Joe Guzzardi

Joe Guzzardi

By Joe Guzzardi
John Micek

John Micek

By John Micek
John Stossel

John Stossel

By John Stossel
Josh Hammer

Josh Hammer

By Josh Hammer
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Judge Andrew Napolitano

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Laura Hollis

Laura Hollis

By Laura Hollis
Marc Munroe Dion

Marc Munroe Dion

By Marc Munroe Dion
Michael Barone

Michael Barone

By Michael Barone
Mona Charen

Mona Charen

By Mona Charen
Rachel Marsden

Rachel Marsden

By Rachel Marsden
Rich Lowry

Rich Lowry

By Rich Lowry
Robert B. Reich

Robert B. Reich

By Robert B. Reich
Ruben Navarrett Jr.

Ruben Navarrett Jr

By Ruben Navarrett Jr.
Ruth Marcus

Ruth Marcus

By Ruth Marcus
S.E. Cupp

S.E. Cupp

By S.E. Cupp
Salena Zito

Salena Zito

By Salena Zito
Star Parker

Star Parker

By Star Parker
Stephen Moore

Stephen Moore

By Stephen Moore
Susan Estrich

Susan Estrich

By Susan Estrich
Ted Rall

Ted Rall

By Ted Rall
Terence P. Jeffrey

Terence P. Jeffrey

By Terence P. Jeffrey
Tim Graham

Tim Graham

By Tim Graham
Tom Purcell

Tom Purcell

By Tom Purcell
Veronique de Rugy

Veronique de Rugy

By Veronique de Rugy
Victor Joecks

Victor Joecks

By Victor Joecks
Wayne Allyn Root

Wayne Allyn Root

By Wayne Allyn Root

Comics

Scott Stantis Daryl Cagle John Branch Andy Marlette Gary Varvel Jimmy Margulies