PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 6, 2025
Scientific Integrity Act
This bill requires each federal agency that funds, conducts, or oversees scientific research to adopt and enforce a scientific integrity policy.
Under the bill, among other parameters, such policies must (1) ensure that scientific conclusions are not based on political considerations, (2) prohibit the suppression or alteration of findings, and (3) permit researchers to disseminate their findings and engage with the scientific community as appropriate. Scientific integrity policies must also include a mechanism through which stakeholders may report violations of the policy.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Agencies are required to submit their scientific integrity policies to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) for approval. Approved policies must be made public, submitted to Congress, and periodically updated. Agencies may use their existing policies provided they satisfy the requirements of the bill. The Government Accountability Office must review implementation of the policies.
Each agency is also required to (1) appoint a Scientific Integrity Officer, (2) establish a process for dispute resolution consistent with the scientific integrity policy, and (3) establish a specified training program for current and new employees.
People & committees
Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Introduced in House
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H543-544)
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 16, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1106 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1106 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1106 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1106 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-06 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Scientific Integrity Act would require federal agencies that fund, conduct, or oversee scientific research to adopt and enforce policies protecting scientific work and communication. Those policies would prohibit research misconduct, interference with scientific findings, and pressure to alter or censor findings. They would cover federal employees and contractors who conduct, manage, communicate, or use scientific work. Agencies would also need complaint and appeal procedures, staff training, and public reporting. These are proposed requirements, not established law based on the supplied evidence.
This Act may be cited as the Scientific Integrity Act.
the head of each covered agency shall— (A) adopt and enforce a scientific integrity policy in accordance with subsections (b) and (c)
The term covered agency means an agency that funds, conducts, or oversees scientific research.
shall prohibit any covered individual from— (A) engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, coercive manipulation, or other scientific or research misconduct; (B) suppressing, altering, interfering with, delaying without scientific merit, or otherwise impeding the release and communication of, scientific or technical findings; (C) intimidating or coercing an individual to alter or censor, attempting to intimidate or coerce an individual to alter or censor, or retaliating against an individual for failure to alter or censor, scientific or technical findings
The term covered individual means a Federal employee or contractor who— (A) is engaged in, supervises, or manages scientific activities; (B) analyzes or publicly communicates information resulting from scientific activities; or (C) uses scientific information or analyses in making bureau, office, or agency policy, management, or regulatory decisions.
an administrative process and administrative appeal process for dispute resolution
regular scientific integrity and ethics training to employees and contractors of the covered agency
shall post an annual report on the public website of the covered agency
Section 2 expresses Congress's view that science should inform public policy, scientific work and communication should be free from politics, ideology, and financial conflicts, and agencies should prevent suppression or distortion of findings. It also affirms petition rights. These are statements of congressional views, not evidence that the bill would achieve those results.
It is the sense of Congress that— (1) science and the scientific process should help inform and guide public policy decisions
science, the scientific process, and the communication of science should be free from politics, ideology, and financial conflicts of interest
Federal agencies that fund, conduct, or oversee research should work to prevent the suppression or distortion of the data and findings
under the First Amendment to the Constitution, citizens of the United States have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances
Section 3 would replace subsections (a) and (b) of section 1009 of the America COMPETES Act with the supplied scientific-integrity framework. The source does not reproduce the provisions being replaced.
Section 1009 of the America COMPETES Act (42 U.S.C. 6620) is amended by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the following:
Coverage would extend to agencies that fund, conduct, or oversee scientific research. Covered people would be federal employees or contractors who perform or manage scientific work, analyze or communicate its results, or use scientific information in policy, management, or regulatory decisions. The bill imports the definition of an agency from another statute.
The term agency has the meaning given the term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
The term covered agency means an agency that funds, conducts, or oversees scientific research.
The term covered individual means a Federal employee or contractor who— (A) is engaged in, supervises, or manages scientific activities; (B) analyzes or publicly communicates information resulting from scientific activities; or (C) uses scientific information or analyses in making bureau, office, or agency policy, management, or regulatory decisions.
Within 90 days after enactment of the Scientific Integrity Act, each covered agency head would have to adopt and enforce a policy and submit it to the Office of Science and Technology Policy for approval. Within 30 days after approval, the agency would have to publish the policy online and send it to the designated Senate and House science committees.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Scientific Integrity Act, the head of each covered agency shall— (A) adopt and enforce a scientific integrity policy in accordance with subsections (b) and (c); and (B) submit such policy to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for approval.
Not later than 30 days after the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy approves the scientific integrity policy under paragraph (1), the head of each covered agency shall— (A) make such policy available to the public on the website of the agency; and (B) submit such policy to the relevant Committees of Congress.
The term relevant Committees of Congress means— (A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate; and (B) the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives.
Agency policies would have to prohibit scientific misconduct, interference with communicating findings, and delays without scientific merit. They would also prohibit coercion or attempted coercion to alter or censor findings, retaliation for refusing to do so, and institutional barriers to outside scientific cooperation and timely communication.
shall prohibit any covered individual from— (A) engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, coercive manipulation, or other scientific or research misconduct; (B) suppressing, altering, interfering with, delaying without scientific merit, or otherwise impeding the release and communication of, scientific or technical findings; (C) intimidating or coercing an individual to alter or censor, attempting to intimidate or coerce an individual to alter or censor, or retaliating against an individual for failure to alter or censor, scientific or technical findings; or (D) implementing an institutional barrier to cooperation with scientists outside the covered agency and the timely communication of scientific or technical findings
Policies would have to allow covered people to share findings through scientific conferences and efforts to publish in peer-reviewed, professional, or scholarly journals, subject to existing law. They would also have to allow scientific board service, professional organization membership and leadership, peer-review work, and participation in the scientific community.
shall allow a covered individual to— (A) disseminate scientific or technical findings, subject to existing law, by— (i) participating in scientific conferences; and (ii) seeking publication in online and print publications through peer-reviewed, professional, or scholarly journals; (B) sit on scientific advisory or governing boards; (C) join or hold leadership positions on scientific councils, societies, unions, and other professional organizations; (D) contribute to the academic peer-review process as reviewers or editors; and (E) participate and engage with the scientific community
An agency could require submission of findings for technical-accuracy review before the conference or publication activities described in the bill. That review would be optional for agencies and would require a clear, consistent process in the agency's policy.
may require a covered individual to, before disseminating scientific or technical findings as described in paragraph (2)(A), submit such findings to the agency for the purpose of review by the agency of the data and findings for technical accuracy if the scientific integrity policy outlines a clear and consistent process for such review
Scientific conclusions could not be based on political considerations. Selection and retention for science and technology positions would have to depend primarily on expertise, credentials, experience, and integrity. Personnel actions involving covered people could not be based on politics or ideology, but that personnel-action protection expressly excludes political appointees.
shall require that— (A) scientific conclusions are not made based on political considerations; (B) the selection and retention of candidates for science and technology positions in the covered agency are based primarily on the candidate’s expertise, scientific credentials, experience, and integrity; (C) personnel actions regarding covered individuals, except for political appointees, are not taken on the basis of political consideration or ideology
Policies would require high ethical and professional standards, safeguards for scientific work, and established scientific review processes for information used in policy decisions, including peer review where appropriate. They would also require procedures addressing applicable whistleblower protections—protections for people reporting wrongdoing—and enforcement consistent with administrative hearings and appeals.
(D) covered individuals adhere to the highest ethical and professional standards in conducting their research and disseminating their findings; (E) the appropriate rules, procedures, and safeguards are in place to ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the covered agency; (F) scientific or technological information considered in policy decisions is subject to well-established scientific processes, including peer review where appropriate; (G) procedures, including procedures with respect to applicable whistleblower protections, are in place as are necessary to ensure the integrity of scientific and technological information and processes on which the covered agency relies in its decisionmaking or otherwise uses; and (H) enforcement of such policy is consistent with the processes for an administrative hearing and an administrative appeal.
Each agency would have to make its policy clear, apply it uniformly, and make it available to the public, employees, contractors, and grantees. People who are neither agency employees nor contractors, including grantees, collaborators, partners, and volunteers, would need a way to report violations.
the head of each covered agency shall— (1) design the scientific integrity policy to apply with respect to the covered agency; (2) ensure that such policy is clear with respect to what activities are permitted and what activities are not permitted; (3) ensure that there is a process for individuals not employed or contracted by the agency, including grantees, collaborators, partners, and volunteers, to report violations of the scientific integrity policy; (4) enforce such policy uniformly throughout the covered agency; and (5) make such policy available to the public, employees, private contractors, and grantees of the covered agency.
Each covered agency would have to appoint a Scientific Integrity Officer within the stated 90-day enactment deadline. The officer would have to be a career agency employee in a professional position with scientific research expertise, direct the activities specified in subsections (e), (f), and (g), and work with the agency's inspector general as appropriate.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, each covered agency shall appoint a Scientific Integrity Officer, who shall— (1) be a career employee at the covered agency in a professional position; (2) have technical knowledge and expertise in conducting and overseeing scientific research; (3) direct the activities and duties described in subsections (e), (f), and (g); and (4) work closely with the inspector general of the covered agency, as appropriate.
Within the stated 180-day enactment deadline, each agency head would have to establish an internal dispute-resolution process, an administrative appeal process, and a training program consistent with the agency's scientific-integrity requirements.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the head of each covered agency shall establish— (1) an administrative process and administrative appeal process for dispute resolution consistent with the scientific integrity policy of the covered agency adopted under subsection (a); and (2) a training program
Training would have to occur regularly for agency employees and contractors, with new covered employees trained within one month of starting work. The program would explain rights and responsibilities concerning research, publication, communication with the media and public, and administrative hearings and appeals.
(A) regular scientific integrity and ethics training to employees and contractors of the covered agency; (B) new covered employees with training within 1 month of commencing employment; (C) information to ensure that covered individuals are fully aware of their rights and responsibilities regarding the conduct of scientific research, publication of scientific research, and communication with the media and the public regarding scientific research; and (D) information to ensure that covered individuals are fully aware of their rights and responsibilities for administrative hearings and appeals established in the covered agency’s scientific integrity policy.
Each Scientific Integrity Officer would have to publish an annual report listing complaint counts, appeals, and complaints still pending from earlier years. It would include an anonymized summary and outcome of each complaint, plus any policy changes.
Each year, each Scientific Integrity Officer appointed by a covered agency under subsection (d) shall post an annual report on the public website of the covered agency that includes, for the year covered by the report— (A) the number of complaints of misconduct with respect to the scientific integrity policy adopted under subsection (a)— (i) filed for administrative redress; (ii) petitioned for administrative appeal; and (iii) still pending from years prior to the year covered by the report, if any; (B) an anonymized summary of each such complaint and the results of each such complaint; and (C) any changes made to the scientific integrity policy.
If someone overruled a Scientific Integrity Officer's decision about a policy violation outside the established dispute-resolution channels, the agency head would have to report the incident within 30 days to the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the designated congressional committees.
Not later than 30 days after the date on which an incident described in subparagraph (B) occurs, the head of a covered agency shall submit a report describing the incident to the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the relevant Committees of Congress.
an incident in which an individual, acting outside the channels established under subsection (e), overrules the decision of the Scientific Integrity Officer with respect to a dispute regarding a violation of the scientific integrity policy
The Office of Science and Technology Policy would have to bring agency Scientific Integrity Officers together annually to discuss implementation practices. It would also have to organize and publicly share information received under subsection (g) on one website, although that subsection refers to itself and does not clearly identify the incoming information.
(g) Office of Science and Technology Policy The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall— (1) collate, organize, and publicly share all information it receives under subsection (g) in 1 place on its own website; and (2) on an annual basis, convene the Scientific Integrity Officer of each covered agency appointed under subsection (d) to discuss best practices for implementing the requirements of this section.
Agencies would have to review their policies periodically and make appropriate changes. Substantial changes would require approval from the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Each agency would also have to submit its policy for review and approval within five years after enactment of the Scientific Integrity Act and every five years thereafter; that recurring requirement has no stated end date.
The head of each covered agency shall periodically conduct a review of the scientific integrity policy and change such policy as appropriate.
The head of each covered agency shall submit to the Office of Science and Technology Policy for approval any substantial changes to the scientific integrity policy.
Not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of the Scientific Integrity Act, and quinquennially thereafter, the head of each covered agency shall submit the scientific integrity policy to the Office of Science and Technology Policy for review and approval.
The Comptroller General would have to review each covered agency's implementation within two years after enactment of the Scientific Integrity Act.
Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of the Scientific Integrity Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review of the implementation of the scientific integrity policy by each covered agency.
An agency could use a scientific-integrity policy already in effect the day before enactment to satisfy the new requirements. Its head would have to determine in writing that the policy meets those requirements and submit both the determination and policy to the Office of Science and Technology Policy for review and approval.
a covered agency’s scientific integrity policy that was in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act may satisfy the requirements under the amendments made by this Act if the head of the covered agency— (1) makes a written determination that the policy satisfies such requirements; and (2) submits the written determination and the policy to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for review and approval.
The bill would leave the application of United States copyright law unaffected.
Nothing in this Act shall affect the application of United States copyright law.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 16, 2026, records introduction in the House, referral to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and sponsor introductory remarks on February 6, 2025. It does not establish subsequent advancement or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-16T08:08:55Z. 2025-02-06: Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. 2025-02-06: Introduced in House 2025-02-06: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H543-544)
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-06. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This finding is limited to that version; accompanying earmark materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced text contains a narrow exception to a personnel-action restriction. Identifying the exception does not imply improper intent or establish its effects under other laws.
Agencies would receive a limited exception from the proposed ban on politically or ideologically based personnel actions when dealing with political appointees. The exception concerns that personnel-action rule; it does not expressly exempt political appointees from the separate requirement that scientific conclusions not be based on politics.
personnel actions regarding covered individuals, except for political appointees, are not taken on the basis of political consideration or ideology
scientific conclusions are not made based on political considerations
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 16, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI