HR-1106-119
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Sponsored by Paul Tonko (D-NY)
What it does
This bill would require every federal agency that funds, conducts, or oversees scientific research to adopt and enforce a written scientific integrity policy. Those policies must prohibit political interference in scientific conclusions, ban the suppression or alteration of research findings, and allow researchers to share their work publicly. Each agency would be required to appoint a Scientific Integrity Officer, establish a process for resolving disputes, create employee training programs, and provide a mechanism for reporting violations. Policies would be submitted to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) for approval, made public, and reported to Congress. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) would review implementation across agencies.
Who benefits
Federal scientists and researchers who would gain formal protections against being pressured to alter or suppress findings. Journalists, academics, and the public who rely on government-produced scientific data. Industries and policymakers who depend on accurate federal research (e.g., public health, environmental, agricultural, and defense sectors). Whistleblowers who would have a formal reporting channel. Research universities and private-sector firms that build on federal science. Taxpayers who fund federal research and have an interest in its integrity.
Who is hurt
Agency political appointees and executive branch officials whose ability to shape the public presentation of scientific findings would be constrained. Agencies would bear administrative costs of creating or updating policies, appointing officers, and running training programs. OSTP would take on a new approval and oversight workload. Industries or interest groups that have historically benefited from the selective use or delay of federal scientific findings may lose that advantage. Agencies with existing policies that do not meet the bill's requirements would face compliance burdens.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that documented cases of political interference in federal science — including altered climate reports, suppressed public health data, and pressured agency scientists — demonstrate a need for enforceable, standardized protections. They contend that the bill codifies and strengthens existing executive-branch scientific integrity policies that have been inconsistently applied or reversed across administrations, creating a durable statutory floor. By requiring GAO oversight and public disclosure, the bill would give Congress and the public meaningful tools to hold agencies accountable when findings are manipulated.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's core terms — such as "political considerations" and "appropriate" dissemination — are vague enough to create bureaucratic disputes over what constitutes a violation, potentially chilling legitimate policy-based decisions about research priorities and communication. They contend that the bill shifts authority over scientific communication from politically accountable executive officials to a new layer of officers and OSTP review, raising separation-of-powers concerns about Congress micromanaging internal executive branch operations. Critics may also argue that existing civil service protections and agency policies already address these concerns without adding new mandates.
Constitutional context
No acute constitutional conflict is presented by this bill. Congress has broad authority under the Spending Clause and its oversight powers to attach conditions to federally funded research and to require agencies to adopt internal policies. The bill's restrictions on suppressing findings could implicate First Amendment questions about compelled or restricted government speech, though courts have generally held that the government's own scientific communications are not protected private speech. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any OSTP regulations implementing the bill's approval standards would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than automatic deference.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (agencies and OSTP) gains a new internal governance structure, while Congress gains oversight leverage through mandatory reporting and GAO review; the GAO serves as the primary external check on implementation.
Historical precedent
The Obama administration issued a government-wide scientific integrity memorandum in 2010 directing agencies to adopt such policies, but that directive was executive in nature and not codified in statute, leaving it subject to revision by subsequent administrations.