1. 1 Regulating Science: Increasing Quality Control in Government Research Kenneth E. Fernandez University of Nevada, Las Vegas Mark S. Davis Ohio State University

2. 2 Research Questions Should we be concerned about the quality of government research? What are the threats to the quality of government research? What can be done to improve research quality in government settings?

3. 3 Government Research What is government research? Example: “The Bureau of Justice Statistics collects, analyzes, publishes, and disseminates information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the operation of justice systems at all levels of government. Impartial, timely, and accurate statistical data are essential to guide and inform federal, state, and local policymaking on crime.”

4. 4

5. 5

6. 6 For government research to be useful it should: –Be of high quality (follow scientific norms) –Be perceived as high quality (meeting scientific norms) Scientific Norms: –Universalism –Communality –Organized Skepticism –Disinterestedness

7. 7 Trust in Science Scandals in Science Evidence that public trust in science, in general, is not deep Academic scholarship calling into question the scientific method, its objectivity, practicality –Post-positivists –Post-modernists

8. 8 Scandals in Science Private Industry: Vioxx; ghost writers Academia: guest authors; journals published Vioxx studies; falsifying data; conflicts of interests Government Research: Union of Concerned Scientists accused Bush administration of suppressing or distorting the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy

9. 9 Survey Research 2005 Survey found 42% of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service scientists felt pressured to not report findings that did not agree with Bush policies on endangered species 2010 Eurobarometer: 58% of respondents agreed "we can no longer trust scientists to tell the truth about controversial scientific and technological issues because they depend more and more on money from industry."

10. 10

11. 11 Public Choice & Research Quality

12. 12 Monitoring Research Activities

13. 13 Research Context & Quality

14. 14 Solutions

15. 15 Solutions Impossible to monitor all research Identify high risk activities –Biomedical vs. physics –Federal vs. local level –Regulatory vs. allocational Peer-Review –Easiest to implement –Promotes: universalism, communality, organized skepticism, and disinterestedness

16. 16 Peer Review Peer review will look different than in academia Needs to be quicker Reviewers may be compensated and vetted Advisory committees –Interested parties will be motivated to help form organized skepticism, ensure disinterestedness

17. 17 Conclusion Trust in science has been threatened Research setting difficult to monitor = possible shirking Principal-agent and conflict of interest problems are enduring policy problems Peer review seems to be a practical, and politically feasible mechanism to adopt Unfortunately, the review of advisory committees is rarely required at the federal level (Jasanoff 1999), and even rarer at the state or local level.