Scientific Integrity at the U.S. Department of the Interior: Challenges and Lessons

On January 28, 2011, Secretary Ken Salazar signed the first policy on integrity of      

scientific and scholarly activities at the Department of the Interior.  The Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity (March 9, 2009), the Office of Science and Technology Policy 2010 guidance memorandum on scientific integrity, and Secretarial Order No. 3305 entitled Ensuring Scientific Integrity within the Department of the Interior lead to the creation of the policy.  Secretary Salazar’s action brought nearly six months of work by an all-bureau writing team to a conclusion.  The policy is designed to support and enhance a culture of scientific and scholarly integrity.  It also establishes scientific and scholarly ethical standards, including codes of conduct and a process for the initial handling of alleged violations.  The policy applies to all Department employees including political appointees when they engage in, supervise, manage, or influence scientific and scholarly activities, or communicate information about these activities, or utilize scientific and scholarly information in making agency policy, management, or regulatory decisions.  The policy also applies to volunteers, contractors, cooperators, partners, permittees, leasees, and grantees that assist with developing or applying the results of scientific and scholarly activities.  Implementation of the policy began with the appointment of the Department Scientific Integrity Officer (DSIO) by the Deputy Secretary to lead the implementation of the policy.  Subsequently, a Bureau Scientific Integrity Officer (BSIO) was named in each Bureau of the Department to lead implementation of the policy within their organization.  The policy has been in place for a number of months and several formal allegations have been submitted for examination.  In addition, informal concerns and questions have been raised to the SIOs and resolved without formal allegations being filed.  Experience with policy implementation indicates that the policy must be flexible because the breadth of issues could not have been anticipated.  The policy has served well thus far but experience indicates that some revisions are required and will be made in the near future.