Trust Your Gut For the first time in almost two decades, a new administration will take office in the United States in January. The new administration is full of new opportunities, and it has lots of interesting policies on the table. You may have some ideas about how the federal government should tackle certain issues and want to voice your opinions. The problem is that not all opinions will matter, especially if they are not based on science. A person’s view on what should happen in the United States government, which seems simple and clear-cut to you, may differ from the views of a new administration. You may not be able to convince anyone to do what you want them to do. The policy people in government are likely to follow their own research-based advice. The new administration may not make policy based on your thoughts. You cannot control policy and politics, and you cannot make every politician make decisions that reflect your views. It is important for you to know how your thoughts on politics relate to scientists’ ability to make their own decisions about their research. It is also important to realize how biases and other psychological factors might affect your thinking about politics. First, it is important to trust that a scientist’s judgment and his or her ability to assess the facts should outweigh your opinion about a policy. This does not mean that it is acceptable to ignore evidence and logic. That would be irresponsible. However, the government can and should be held accountable to an even higher standard than the typical private company that is not in the business of caring for the public. But in this regard, it is important for you to realize that the government does not always know what the best solutions are or how to best protect the public’s health and safety. A government, no matter who is in power, can make mistakes. People in the government should be held accountable for making errors or failing to do their job properly. You should also be concerned about the people whom you put in charge of the government. Scientists’ views and perceptions might be more influential in government than you realize. Scientists are in a unique position to provide critical insights to the new administration. Science Needs Funding After the 2012 election, Republicans were thrilled that, for the first time in many years, they had increased their majorities in Congress. They even had more seats in the Senate. After Obama won reelection in 2012, Republicans tried hard to repeal the Affordable Care Act (also known as the Obama administration’s health-care law). But this made them look bad and put them at odds with many of their constituents. The reality is that people in the United States need access to health care and want the health care system to work better. Scientists often criticize the government for funding science research too poorly. These scientists may want to see higher funding levels for scientific research and development. A lot of scientific progress is tied to funding and to governmental support, and scientists want to continue that progress. Funding for science is typically not voted on in Congress. Instead, the president makes the decision about how much money will be spent on research. But sometimes a Congressperson has to come up with a budget proposal to make the government work. Scientists should also consider that the federal budget is about $18 trillion, and about $4.6 trillion is spent on the military. For the 2016 fiscal year, which ended on September 30, 2015, funding for biomedical research amounted to only $33.6 billion. Although biomedical research and development contribute to the economy, they are not the government’s number-one priority. This means that you can expect to face a lot of opposition if you want more funding for science and research. Even though there is some resistance among politicians and the general public, science, particularly biomedical research, is important to the economy. A lot of scientific progress helps companies to develop new products and new industries that make the United States stronger. It is vital that you recognize how important it is to put science at the forefront of public policy. There are enough challenges in the U.S. government today, without having to deal with the opinions of a person who may or may not have the best interests of the scientific community in mind. Be Cautious About What You Say As you know, many scientists are strongly motivated to make their research or field better, including improving scientific understanding and making the world a better place. You might think that government officials or others who are in a position to make decisions about science policy would be interested in the views and opinions of scientists. However, this is not always true. When a politician listens to scientists, it is not to receive information. Instead, this listening allows him or her to find ways to talk about his or her policies in a way that makes sense to the people. Politics is about getting elected, so candidates do not make decisions based on a scientist’s opinions but rather on what people in their district want. And politicians may fear being called out by their constituents for contradicting what they previously promised. Politics is about winning or losing and making friends by appealing to the desires of the public. You can expect to be disappointed if you go into government for a meeting with policy people and expect them to do what you want them to do. Politics is also influenced by many factors that science research can’t measure. Because science policy often focuses on things that many people want, it is easy for many politicians to see what they want to do as the right thing to do. It may seem to a scientist that politicians should pay attention to science, but it is not possible to make them do it. Instead, scientists must do what they can to make science more relevant to political decisions. If you really care about science, you should know that your goals for science may not always line up with those of the government. Even though you may be disappointed, being concerned about your science and your understanding of its value can help you make decisions that are in the best interests of science and the future of the United States. Scientific Misconduct The scientific community has long struggled with the problem of fraud. Misconduct occurs when scientists perform research that is incorrect or plagiarize someone else’s work. It is not a problem in the science or publishing communities alone, but it does create the potential for someone to take credit for someone else’s work. The problem of fraud is getting worse, as technology and the Internet allow individuals to plagiarize work faster and with less effort. There are several problems that are common in academic science. Sometimes, scientists simply make mistakes and do not intend to harm the community. Sometimes, they become so concerned about maintaining a position of status or advancing their career that they fail to report or correct errors in their work. In other cases, scientists might have personal and financial reasons to want to avoid reporting misconduct. Some of the most egregious cases might seem so blatant to you that they simply seem wrong and are not hard to avoid. For example, some scientists are guilty of plagiarism when they copy and paste ideas or paragraphs from another source. It is not hard to check that every statement has been cited properly and to find whether it has been previously published. Some publishers have made progress in their policies regarding the peer-review process for submissions. This is not to say that all publishers make the same mistakes or are involved in misconduct, but they all have to work to make sure that they publish high-quality articles. The good news is that research misconduct is relatively rare. Despite the bad cases, most scientists are doing good work and do their best to avoid misconduct. With good peer review, which can be the result of the publication process and editorial policies, most problems are caught before they are published or before they are plagiarized. Your scientific work should be considered in the context of the field of science, and any research that questions the consensus of the field will be much more controversial. Scientists can’t always rely on peer review, but the peer-review system is important to the scientific community. Peer review is not perfect, and it will not catch every instance of misconduct or fraud, but it is the best way for science to maintain its integrity. There is also some bad news that scientists should know about. There are times when scientists deliberately make a mistake, they change the meaning of what they are doing, or they alter data to support a particular view. This is sometimes called fraud, or it might be referred to as cheating or misconduct. Scientists who deliberately make mistakes may be committing misconduct. It is also possible for scientists to use their work to advance their own political, personal, or financial agenda. Researchers sometimes feel they are in a position to do this or that they may get in trouble for reporting misconduct, which can lead to them suppressing the problem. Other times, a scientist may publish a paper knowing that he or she has made an error, but there is a risk that someone else will use that paper to make a claim or a recommendation that may be incorrect. You should be skeptical about scientists who say that they think a certain way, while not behaving in a way that seems consistent with the group. It is possible for individuals to think a certain way and not be able to act on it. A good example of this would be someone who believes in science but also believes in God or some other god. Many times, scientists who may have different views from yours have a right to express those views, even if you disagree with them. Some scientists may not be aware of what they are doing and may not even realize that they are promoting their beliefs in their work, but they are entitled to do this. The problem is that people who share those beliefs may take