Restoring Gold Standard Science
Could special education benefit from the US president's executive order?
US President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order entitled “Restoring Gold Standard Science” 23 May 2025. The order directs federal agencies and their officers to provide guidance consistent with the executive order; avoid misconduct and make data publicly available; and follow no guidance for integrity issued after 29 January 2021 and before 20 January 2025 and review (and revoke, as needed) policies about scientific integrity adopted during the administration of Joseph R. Biden. Other features of the order address administrative matters such as by whom and how the executive order will be executed.
In one paragraph (“Sec.3.”) of the order, there are details about the meaning of “Gold Standard Science.” The EO reads,
For the purposes of this order, Gold Standard Science means science conducted in a manner that is:
(i) reproducible;
(ii) transparent;
(iii) communicative of error and uncertainty;
(iv) collaborative and interdisciplinary;
(v) skeptical of its findings and assumptions;
(vi) structured for falsifiability of hypotheses;
(vii) subject to unbiased peer review;
(viii) accepting of negative results as positive outcomes; and
(ix) without conflicts of interest.
As someone who .has advocated reform of scientific practices in special education, One might expect that I would be elated—even jumping for joy!—to read these standards. Indeed, I am encouraged by references to ideas that I embrace, but I am actually pretty damn disappointed with the EO.
Why would I feel disappointed? Here are just a few reasons:
The rationale for the restoration of the “gold standard” is founded on questionable interpretations of questionable “facts.” Not only does the statement say that “A majority of researchers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics believe science is facing a reproducibility crisis,” but also it cites “several notable cases” government agencies “have used…scientific information in a highly misleading manner.”
The standards as described in the material previously quoted here are presented in a way that makes them apply to each and every study. Nice goal, but it’s unreasonable.1 Anyone who has conducted studies knows that a team has to compromise on pristine methods because of factors such as time, resources (funds), and so forth.2 I say this not to make excuses, but just to describe reality. More specifically, how does one conduct a study that accepts that “negative results are positive outcomes?” Of course, perhaps this guidance is a sophomoric take on the standing scientific concept that one cannot prove null hypotheses.
The guidance actually seems squarely opposed to the principles of scientific knowledge. The EO stated that it “empowers a political appointee at each agency to make their own assessment of research through that agency based on this standard. They can designate research as scientific misconduct and dismiss its use.” I have difficulty with squaring that guidance with the pursuit of knowledge as an unbiased endeavor. One famous take on about the pursuit of knowledge, written by a predecessor to President Trump, provides better guidance. Thomas Jefferson (1820) wrote “…for here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left fee to combat it.” As I read Mr. Jefferson’s statement and apply it to scientific endeavor, the argument is inconsistent with the thrust of the EO.
I am not alone in questioning the merit of this EO. As of 9 PM EDT on 3 June 2025, > 7490 signatories were listed as supporting a call for legal challenges to the “dangerous overreach” of the Executive Order. Here are a few sources that I recommend to readers of Special Education Today:
In Nature on 28 May 2025, Jeff Tollefson and Dan Garisto (2025) published “Trump’s call for ‘gold-standard science’ has prompted an outcry: Here’s why.”
In The Guardian for 29 May 2025, Colette Delawalla, Victor Ambros, Carl Bergstrom, Carol Greider, Michael Mann, and Brian Nosek (2025) published an opinion piece entitled “Trump’s new ‘gold standard’ rule will destroy American science as we know it….” They refer to the EO as “Fool’s-Gold Standard Science.”
Writing in the blog of the Union of Concerned Scientists for 29 May 2025, Jules Barbati-Dajches published “Trump’s Executive Order Puts Science Under the Thumb of Politics.” In it they explained that “this EO is another smoke screen created by the Trump administration in order to push in political agenda disguised as science.”
Brian Nosek, director of the Center for Open Science, published “COS Statement on ‘Restoring Gold Standard Science’ Executive Order” on 29 May 2025. Referring to the representations of open science practices in the EO, he wrote, “Unfortunately, their application in this Executive Order is counterproductive for open science’s purpose to accelerate discovery, advance treatments, and create knowledge.”
Although these scientists did not expressly write about special education research, their arguments are applicable, never the less. If political appointees have the authority to determine what scientific findings about education are to be promoted or even published, there is no telling what we will or will not see coming from the US Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and others.
In summary, I applaud the effort 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.” I doubt, however, that the practices and procedures promoted as policy in the EO will help realize that end. Indeed, I suspect that special education research will be hampered by guidance issued under the order.
References
Berntsen, L., Courtney, E., Delawalla, C., Flores, J. P., Goldstein, S., & Payne, C. (2025). Why we organized ‘Stand Up For Science’. Nature Human Behavior, 9, 627–628. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02146-0
Delwalla, C., Ambros, V., Bergstrom, C., Greider, C., Mann, M., & Nosek, B. (2025). Trump’s new ‘gold standard’ rule will destroy American science as we know it. The new executive order allows political appointees to undermine research they oppose, paving the way for state-controlled science. The Guardian, 29 May, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/29/trump-american-science
Jefferson, T. H. (1820). Founders online: Letter to William Roscoe dated 27 December 1820. Archives.gov. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-16-02-0404
Tollefson, J., & Garisto, D. (2025). Trump’s call for ‘gold-standard science’ has prompted an outcry: here’s why: Thousands have signed an open letter against the US president’s latest order, anxious about political interference in science and more. Nature, 28 May 2025. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01668-x
Footnotes
As I read those standards, I wondered if they were added to the EO by an attorney who had read some literature on open science (e.g., the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines for journals) and, with an otherwise limited understanding of the goals and practice or science, had figured that they were practical recommendations.
Good analysis of the issues, John. Thanks.