What Is Trump’s “Gold Standard Science” Actually About?

President Donald Trump has signed a new executive order that has the stated goal of restoring trust in science – but critics are claiming the order will allow the administration to dictate what science can be done and shared, limiting freedom of research across the United States.

In section 7 of the executive order, the administration explains that each agency’s head will be selecting a senior appointee who will take “appropriate measures to correct scientific information in response to violations.” Heads of agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are appointed by the President of the United States and require confirmation by the Senate, making the selection of a senior appointee a de facto political choice, not one based on science.

Science aims to be self-correcting. Hypotheses and even established theories are checked by repetition of old experiments and new observations. New work is peer-reviewed, new findings are evaluated, and ideas are updated. This is the ideal. But science is ultimately a human tool, so mistakes happen. It exists within the context of our society with the pressure of personal expectations and capitalism, so abuses of such a tool also happen.

Science is not perfect, but it aims to be better. It is in this context that Restoring Gold Standard Science comes in. The executive order argues that there has been a decline in trust of science (something that is not necessarily backed by research). The appointee will have the power to decide when scientific findings have to be corrected according to the nebulous definition of "gold standard science".

“My Administration is committed to restoring a gold standard for science to ensure that federally funded research is transparent, rigorous, and impactful, and that Federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available,” the executive order says.

The term "gold standard" comes from a monetary system where the value of an economic unit, such as the US dollar, is based on a certain quantity of gold. This is no longer commonplace, but the expression has entered the vernacular as something that is ideal or as good as it can be. 

In science, the gold standard is often another way to discuss the 5-sigma threshold in particle physics. This is seen as the statistical certainty of having observed a new particle or phenomenon. While it is very important, it cannot be applied to every aspect of science due to intrinsic differences in how we do particle physics compared with other scientific research. For example, in many fields the gold standard for a statistically significant result is considered to be achieving a P-value of <0.05. In medical research, the gold standard is often used to refer to double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. 

But has the Trump administration acted upon a "gold standard" of science? 

Since January 20, the administration has made false assertions on the impact of climate change, incorrectly defined sex determination as binary, and pushed vaccine misinformation, as well as promoting the “lab leak hypothesis” of COVID-19 without definitive supporting evidence.

Last week, the administration published its "Make America Healthy Again" report. Experts believe it was generated using artificial intelligence, as it had many mistaken scientific references as well as completely invented studies. Large language models are known to hallucinate non-existent work.

Back in March, Republican Senator Ted Cruz released a list of “woke” research grants. Originally, woke was a word from African-American Vernacular English to underline the importance of being aware of social and political issues affecting Black Americans. Following its adoption in the mainstream, it was turned into something negative by right-wing commentators without a specific definition.

Among the examples of “woke” science, there was a study on the spread of the mint plant (due to the use of the term "diversify"), work to create biosensors to better treat infectious disease (the woke keyword appearing to be "POC" but not meaning "person of color", rather "point of care"), and a device that could stop severe bleeding (woke keywords appearing to be "victims" and "trauma").

This is not new conduct for the Trump administration. Back in his first term, Trump attacked the NIH following the failure of his administration to tackle the COVID pandemic. By the time he had left office, more than 400,000 people in the US had died due to COVID-19. His administration was also involved in a high-profile scandal when Trump health appointee Michael Caputo tried to restrict a scientific publication during the COVID pandemic in 2020, as its findings went against the messaging from the White House.

“We see through this bad faith appropriation of scientific language and principles,” the group Stand Up For Science wrote in an open letter they're asking supporters to sign to fight the executive order. “The Executive Order further consolidates political control over the Nation's scientific infrastructure, co-opting the language of open science to implement a system under which direct presidential appointees are given broad latitude to designate many common and important scientific activities as scientific misconduct, and to penalize those involved accordingly.”