Scientific Integrity

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Tonko for his leadership, for putting this together, and for leading this bill year after year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Trump administration's unconscionable and irresponsible attacks on America's scientific integrity.

The very foundation of our success as a world power has been our scientific prowess, and now, the Trump administration is threatening to undermine that success.

That is why I am here to talk about our bill with Representative Paul Tonko, the Scientific Integrity Act, and to defend the very foundation of what makes America a global leader: our scientific leadership and infrastructure.

I am proud to represent the National Science Foundation here in Alexandria, Virginia, the very heart of Virginia. The NSF is an incredible resource and institution. It was established in 1950 by Congress as an independent agency to promote scientific advancement in America. For 75 years, it has repeatedly accomplished that goal.

NSF has helped to keep the U.S. at the forefront of scientific discovery. It helped catalyze the internet and develop the technology for MRI machines and 3D printing machines. It helped to create the ``Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles,'' detected gravitational waves, developed LASIK eye surgery, and much, much more.

Over its lifetime, the National Science Foundation supported over 350,000 scientists, and of this number, 262 have won Nobel Prizes.

Trump has already begun unprecedented attacks on the scientific community with purges of NSF workers and grants, scientific advisers, and the broader scientific workforce.

I strongly oppose these efforts to target the National Science Foundation and weaken one of the guiding lights that makes America strong.

I am also deeply concerned about this new era of censorship in science. NSF employees were given this list of words to look for in grants and flag them for possible termination. This, by the way, is only a sampling of the words. It is much longer.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all who are watching to take a look at this list right next to me. This is just a portion of the full list, but it is a representative sample.

Oh, wait. I can't use ``representative.'' It is on the list.

What is most frustrating to me is that many of these words are just standard words used in basic science.

Why the censorship? I thought Republicans hated the cancel culture.

This list contains ``women'' and ``female,'' but no mention of ``men'' or ``male.'' My Republican friends have been telling me that there are only two genders, but now that we can't speak the word ``woman,'' are we down to just one?

There is ``black'' and ``indigenous'' on this list, but no ``white.''

It is very clear that the only identity not censored is mine, but why does being a woman or being part of a Tribe make one ineligible for science? Why is the Trump administration attacking Tribal communities?

I also don't understand this censorship of indigenous communities. It is also clear that the person who wrote this list has never been a scientist. It is ill-fitting, unwise, and actively harmful for scientific purposes.

The inclusion of many of these words, like ``bias,'' ``included,'' or ``excluded,'' clearly shows that none of the people in charge of this list were scientists. If they were, they would know that many of these words are commonly used in scientific papers.

Mr. Speaker, imagine being a grant applicant applying to develop the newest MRI technology or to develop a new drug locally, or being on the precipice of discovering a new gene in a plant or about to be taking pictures of two black holes for the first time. Imagine that this is someone's life's work.

Now, imagine having to comb through a proposal or dissertation, the work of months or years, just to find every instance of words that don't belong there.

It doesn't matter if the instance of the word ``polarization'' refers to the magnetic field on an MRI machine instead of political polarization.

It doesn't matter if the use of the word ``indigenous'' is referring to an indigenous plant or if ``activism'' refers to the state of an enzyme or ``inclusion'' or ``excluded'' refers to the statistical analysis of the variables used. It also doesn't matter if ``black'' refers to the black hole being studied.

The study is now going to be flagged by Trump's immature and sometimes, we learned today, even blatantly racist cronies at DOGE, who built a flowchart on how to handle these words. They want to find any way to terminate the program regardless of intent.

The fact that these commonly used words are on this list indicates a lack of consideration of basic science. Someone should have spent more time in high school chemistry, physics, or biology class.

The list also indicates that the Trump administration is sending NSF on an internal manhunt, one that will waste an incredible amount of time and energy that could be much better used on advancing science.

If this list forces scientists to rewrite papers to avoid or minimize use of the words found on this arbitrary list, it further delays our already long grant process and then it hurts science.

If this list delays a drug's development or incredible discoveries that keep America at the forefront of scientific development, then it hurts science.

If scientists are interrogated by DOGE to determine if their use of polarization refers to a scientific principle or a political principle, then it hurts science.

If our scientists have to seriously reconsider whether they even want to apply for the grant in the first place, then it hurts science.

If NSF is discouraged from hiring or giving grants to any scientist except White, non-Hispanic men, well, we shouldn't expect many Nobel Prizes in the future.

If this treatment of our science and our scientists escalates and pushes scientists out of America or out of the field, then it only hurts our economy, hurts our country, and it helps China.

It is time to stop this madness and protect the American success story, and that is why I am here today, to decry these attacks on America, our science, and the National Science Foundation. That is why our Scientific Integrity Act is so important.

This bill would call on agencies to develop scientific integrity standards. We need scientists, not corrupt industry hacks, leading our future.

We need scientists who seek the truth rather than those who are paid to produce studies that help the businesses who pay them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us on the Scientific Integrity Act and act now to protect America's international leadership.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source