The Scientific Integrity Act would amend the America COMPETES Act to require every covered federal agency to adopt and enforce a formal scientific integrity policy within 90 days of enactment, with approval from the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and public posting within 30 days of approval. The policy would prohibit dishonesty, suppression or alteration of findings, coercive manipulation, retaliation against researchers, and institutional barriers to collaboration.
It also requires appointment of a dedicated Scientific Integrity Officer, a mandatory training program, and an administrative dispute process to handle misconduct claims. The bill sets annual reporting for integrity complaints, a defined incident-reporting mechanism, and oversight by OSTP and the Comptroller General.
It clarifies that existing copyright law is unaffected and that the policy should not hamper the dissemination and peer-review processes traditionally used in science.
At a Glance
What It Does
Not later than 90 days after enactment, each covered agency must adopt and enforce a scientific integrity policy, and submit it to OSTP for approval. After OSTP approval, agencies must publish the policy publicly within 30 days and share it with Congress.
Who It Affects
Agencies that fund, conduct, or oversee scientific research and their employees, contractors, grantees, and collaborators.
Why It Matters
Establishes uniform, accountable standards to protect the integrity of federally funded science, improve transparency, and restore public trust in the research that informs policy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill overhauls how the federal government governs science inside agencies that fund or conduct research. It requires each covered agency to draft a formal scientific integrity policy within 90 days, obtain approval from OSTP, and publish the policy publicly within 30 days of approval.
The policy must prohibit misconduct, data manipulation, suppression of findings, coercion, retaliation, and institutional barriers to collaboration, while preserving scientists’ ability to publish and participate in peer review. Agencies must appoint a Scientific Integrity Officer, design a clear process for reporting violations, and provide regular training to employees and contractors.
The bill also requires annual internal reporting of misconduct complaints, a 30-day incident-reporting trigger when a decision is overruled, and ongoing oversight from OSTP and Congress. It expressly clarifies that copyright law remains unchanged and defines a covered agency for purposes of the act.
Finally, it calls for periodic internal reviews and a five-year cycle of OSTP approvals, plus a requirement for a separate Comptroller General evaluation of implementation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Policy adoption within 90 days for all covered agencies, with OSTP approval and public posting within 30 days, Prohibitions on misrepresentation, suppression, interference, retaliation, and barriers to collaboration in federally funded science, Appointment of a Scientific Integrity Officer at each covered agency within 90 days, Mandatory training programs and an administrative process for reporting violations, Annual integrity reporting, incident reporting for overruled decisions, and periodic external reviews by OSTP and the Comptroller General
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Sense of Congress on scientific integrity and public trust
This section frames the overarching rationale: science should inform public policy, the public must trust the science behind policy, and the integrity of publicly funded research must be protected from politics, ideology, and conflicts of interest. It also emphasizes the right to petition and the importance of open data, while recognizing that agencies must safeguard the integrity of scientific processes and findings.
Policy adoption and OSTP approval timeline
Not later than 90 days after enactment, the head of each covered agency must adopt and enforce a scientific integrity policy and submit it to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for approval. After OSTP approval, the policy must be published publicly within 30 days and transmitted to the relevant Congressional committees.
Policy prohibitions and allowed activities
A policy must prohibit dishonesty, data misrepresentation, suppression or delaying of findings, intimidation, retaliation, and institutional barriers to external collaboration. It must also permit researchers to disseminate findings through conferences and peer-reviewed publications, subject to applicable law and established review processes.
Implementation and enforcement
The head of each covered agency must design the policy for its specific environment, ensure clarity on permitted vs. prohibited activities, establish a reporting pathway for violations by non-employees (such as grantees and partners), enforce the policy uniformly, and make the policy publicly accessible.
Scientific Integrity Officer role
Each covered agency must appoint a Scientific Integrity Officer within 90 days. The officer is a career employee who leads integrity activities and coordinates with the agency inspector general as appropriate.
Administrative process and training
Within 180 days, agencies must set up an administrative dispute process aligned with the policy, and implement a training program that covers ethics, integrity, data handling, and rights and responsibilities for all employees and contractors, including onboarding training for new hires.
Reporting and transparency
Officers must publish an annual report on complaints, including anonymized summaries and outcomes. They must also report incidents where an outside channel overrules the integrity officer’s decision, and agencies must maintain transparency about policy changes.
OSTP oversight and best-practice sharing
OSTP collects and publicly shares all related information and, each year, brings integrity officers together to discuss implementation best practices and to harmonize approaches across agencies.
Periodic review and approval
Internal reviews of the policy are required, substantial changes must be submitted to OSTP for approval, and every five years the policy must undergo a quinquennial OSTP review and re-approval.
Comptroller General review
Not later than two years after enactment, the Comptroller General conducts a federal assessment of how the scientific integrity policies are implemented across covered agencies.
Definitions
Key terms include: ‘agency’ (as defined in 5 U.S.C.), ‘covered agency’ (funds, conducts, or oversees scientific research), ‘covered individual’ (employee or contractor involved in scientific activities or policy use of scientific data), and ‘relevant Committees of Congress’ (Senate Commerce Committee and House Science Committee).
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Science across all five countries.
Explore Science in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal scientists and researchers at covered agencies gain clearer rules and protection against coerced or concealed findings, supporting research quality and reputation.
- University and industry researchers collaborating with federal agencies benefit from standardized expectations and easier validation of data and results.
- Scientific Integrity Officers and agency inspectors general gain a formalized role and clearer reporting pathways to enforce integrity.
- The public and policymakers benefit from greater transparency and trust in federally funded science.
- Grantees and contractors benefit from explicit rights to publish and participate in peer review under a transparent framework.
Who Bears the Cost
- Agencies must fund the appointment of Scientific Integrity Officers and implement training programs, which adds administrative overhead and staffing costs.
- Contractors and grantees face new reporting obligations and potential oversight, increasing compliance costs and administrative work.
- Oversight bodies (OSTP and Congress) must allocate resources for annual reporting, reviews, and cross-agency coordination.
- Small or niche programs within agencies may experience relatively higher per-unit costs to implement uniform policies.
- The general federal budget bears ongoing costs to maintain periodic reviews and audits of integrity processes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between enforcing rigorous scientific integrity across diverse agencies and preserving the flexibility needed for scientific collaboration and innovation. Strong anti-misconduct provisions can deter misconduct but risk creating bureaucratic friction or chilling effects, while too-light a framework may fail to protect data and findings from political or coercive pressures.
The bill creates a framework that aims to protect scientific integrity without prescribing exact internal processes for every agency, leaving room for tailored implementation while enforcing core prohibitions and reporting requirements. The central design challenge is balancing robust safeguards against misconduct with the need for scientific collaboration, timely data sharing, and academic freedom.
Agencies must allocate resources to train personnel, run internal review processes, and maintain public reporting portals, which could compress timelines or increase administrative load, particularly for smaller programs. The policy also relies on OSTP and Inspector General involvement for oversight, which could raise questions about potential bottlenecks or uneven enforcement if resources are constrained.
The definition of “covered agency” anchors the scope to entities that fund, conduct, or oversee research, but nuances in how contractors, grantees, and partners are treated may require clarifying guidance over time.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.