Comment from Rachel Cole
Rachel ColeOpposeAcademic
Summary: A university instructor/professor opposes the proposed rule, arguing that the term "Gold Standard Science" is too vague and lacks concrete operational definitions. They contend that this ambiguity allows for political bias in decision-making and will ultimately undermine scientific integrity and the country's global standing.
I strongly oppose the concept of “Gold Standard Science” as used in this proposed revised rule. One of the ideas I first teach my undergraduate neuroscience students in their rigorous Research Methods class is that all variables must be operationalized. Each variable must be defined, concrete, and measurable. This concept of “Gold Standard Science” does not meet any of those criteria. I imagine the undefined nature of this concept is by design, as it would likely provide the current administration broad discretion to claim that certain institutions meet or do not meet this undefined criteria. Thus, they would likely base their decisions on political alignment, which is an incredibly biased and unscientific way of measuring scientific output. This revision has significant potential to undermine scientific experts, which is certain to weaken our country’s scientific standing in the world, which I thought was something our government would care about quite a bit.