As the most comprehensive resource available for those involved in technology-based economic development, SSTI offers the services that are needed to help build tech-based economies. Learn more about membership...
NIH and NSF respond to order for “gold standard science”
As agencies begin delivering their implementation plans in response to President Trump’s executive order that called for the implementation of “gold standard science (GSS)” and asserted that “(r)eproducibility, rigor, and unbiased peer review” must be maintained, the proposed agency actions appear less disruptive than many funded parties had feared. NIH notes that its embrace of GSS is a continuation of its existing commitment to scientific excellence and that the agency “welcomes the opportunity to reaffirm its continued commitment to this goal.” NSF sets forth plans to “redouble” its commitment to GSS.
To illustrate its previous improvements and ongoing commitment to reproducibility, NIH’s report notes that:
-
Since FY16, NIH has revised its grant application and review processes to enhance the reproducibility of research findings through increased scientific rigor and transparency.
-
In FY23, NIH updated it's Guidelines and Policies for the Conduct of Research in the Intramural Research Program (IRP), to include Scientific Rigor and Reproducibility as a core function.
-
Since FY24, NIH has launched several new research strategies focused on enhancing the reproducibility and replicability of biomedical research and novel technologies, such as the NIH Common Fund’s Replication to Enhance Research Impact Initiative (Replication Initiative).
However, both agencies mentioned better handling of negative or null research results as something they are addressing currently. As explained in this article in European Neuropsychopharmacology, there is general reluctance within the scientific community to publish negative results. Who, after all, likes to talk about their failures?
Negative results, however, are not failures in scientific research and perhaps the community is too closely associating the science with the scientist. NIH plans to support reproducing and replicating data and research results that include those focused on sharing negative or null results. NSF notes it “will support activities to develop the culture of acceptance of negative or null results as positive outcomes in the research community, resulting in the broad dissemination of those outcomes.” As the European Neuropsychopharmacology article notes, the outcome of these changes may be positive economically as well, due to the likelihood of reducing waste by discouraging the use of additional resources in an attempt to confirm questionable findings.
Both agencies also addressed peer review in their reports. The NIH report states, as an illustration of its current efforts, that “(o)ne of the core values of NIH peer review is transparency.” They provide links to a plethora of publicly available resource documents, including descriptions of standing review panels, the rosters of individuals who participate on review panels, information on each funded grant, and a simplified peer review framework. However, there remains the concern about a recent executive order from the White House that aims to centralize federal grantmaking at a potential cost to scientific value of funded research. SSTI stated in this article that, “(w)hile the EO notes, “nothing in this order shall be construed to discourage or prevent the use of peer review methods,” it sidelines the peer review process with the disclaimer, “provided that peer review recommendations remain advisory” to the senior appointees.