Thoughts on a "defense" of Gold Standard science published in Science Magazine.
Notes from my inbox.
Hope you are all having a good holiday weekend. I’m working clinically today but I wanted to share an email exchange I had with a colleague this weekend—name redacted, lightly edited for flow. Let me know if you find this kind of thing useful. If so, I’ll do more of these in the future. Thank you for being here!
My emails to colleagues often contain some carefully considered thoughts that otherwise might never see the light of day. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that some of these might be worth sharing with you. They document how I’m thinking about issues that matter to me. In fact, when I’m emailing with trusted colleagues, I often put just as much thought and energy into the exchanges as I would into essays meant for publication. So, they’re, like, truly “Inside Medicine”—at least after copyediting.
So, here we go…
An email from a trusted colleague.
Yesterday, I opened the following email, sent by a colleague I admire. It was about an opinion published in Science late last month (which I had not read).
Dear Jeremy,
If you have not seen this Science essay below, read into the hypocrisy of it. Note my highlights (bolded). Happy Fourth!
Cheers,
[Redacted]
The essay itself…
Now, I must admit that I had no idea who the essay author, Michael Kratsios, was. So I went in with no knowledge or bias, other than that someone I trust found the essay to be wanting. (Of course, that doesn’t mean I would—in fact, I pride myself on avoiding “GroupThink.” I read it carefully, trying to determine whether I thought the essay should be taken seriously. Did it make good points? Were the arguments compelling? After all, my goal is to help move medical research forward, and now is a time for reflection. This type of work must include a willingness to look inward for blindspots.
Here’s the piece, followed by the email I sent to my colleague in reply.
For more than a decade, prominent scientists across disciplines and institutions in the United States have expressed concerns about the quality of the nation’s science and, in the best scientific tradition, called for self-correction. That is why the fiercely negative reaction of some members of the scientific establishment to last month’s Restoring Gold Standard Science executive order from President Trump comes as a surprise to some. The order, after all, aims to address these long-standing concerns about the impact, conduct, and public trust of science. As the just-released White House guidance memorandum for federal research agencies on implementing Gold Standard Science makes clear, the intent of this action is to bring the nation’s research enterprise into alignment with the high standards that the scientific community has long set for itself.
In a 2014 Science editorial, Marcia McNutt, then serving as editor-in-chief of this publication, highlighted ongoing replication issues and reiterated the foundational importance of transparency and reproducibility for the conduct of science. In 2015, the Center for Open Science introduced its Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines, helping scientific institutions and journals hold themselves to higher standards. In 2019, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine published a report on the same topic, titled “Reproducibility and Replicability in Science,” with recommendations to the scientific community. These conversations continue today.
The executive order calls for a commitment to ensuring that taxpayer-funded science is reproducible, transparent, and falsifiable; subject to unbiased peer review; clear about errors and uncertainties; skeptical of assumptions; collaborative and interdisciplinary; accepting of negative results as positive outcomes; and free from conflicts of interest. To be sure, these have been the aims of the scientific enterprise all along, but few can deny that there have been lapses.
Nevertheless, since President Trump signed the Gold Standard Science order, the outcry from part of the scientific community reframes this action as an extreme and divisive step. Although some critics grudgingly admit the principles that make up Gold Standard Science are uncontroversial and commendable, they have framed this effort as co-opting or weaponizing the language of open science. Indeed, a recent news article in Science called attention to researchers shrugging their shoulders about “overstated” problems in reproducibility, publication bias, transparency, and more. This reactionary attitude is counterproductive and reflects the danger of allowing politicization to creep into the nation’s scientific enterprise; scientists dismissing Gold Standard Science appear to be more concerned with their preferred policy outcomes than with the procedures that reinforce scientific rigor and excellence.
This week’s memorandum further instructs each research agency to develop minimally burdensome metrics, evaluation mechanisms, and personnel training for incorporating the principles of Gold Standard Science into its work. Occasional reports to the Office of Science and Technology Policy will ensure accountability and provide opportunities to examine and refine processes for continual improvement.
What exists at the public’s largesse exists for the public’s benefit. In a self-governing republic, it is the responsibility of those appointed to represent the people to help direct and coordinate the taxpayer-supported research enterprise in the national interest. Essential to that task is preserving both the freedom of science from partisan politics and democratic government from the excessive influence of the scientific establishment. How scientific inquiry and findings should shape policy-making is itself a prudential, political judgment. But science and politics need not be in conflict. Ensuring that the science used in decisions conforms to the highest standards of research integrity makes these judgments themselves transparent and scientific, and represents a sincere effort to uphold America’s scientific enterprise within the constraints of political reality and with due respect for the public.
The federal agencies that are subject to the Gold Standard Science order are only one part of the research ecosystem. Ideally, this effort will set an example for the rest of the research enterprise to do the same, especially the nation’s universities, scientific professional societies, and publishers of the scientific literature as they continue their own efforts to improve the quality of research.
The loudest voices in this ongoing conversation may never be convinced, but rather than dismiss Gold Standard Science, the scientific community has the opportunity to take this government-led effort at self-reform and review how it too can support the highest standards of scientific integrity.
My reaction...
By the time I’d read the piece two or three times—to make sure I was not missing anything—I had reached a strong conclusion: This essay was bullshit masquerading as dedication to rational inquiry. That being the case, I penned my reply to my colleague summarizing my reaction (see below). Keep in mind that I wrote this response before I knew anything about Michael Kratsios, the author of the editorial. (My colleague had pasted the entirety of the essay’s text into the email to me, so I didn’t have the biographical information that is easily accessible on the Science webpage.)
Hi [Redacted],
I found this essay difficult to read. It imagines that any reasonable sounding message (the Executive Order on Gold Standard science) can be received as a standalone non-sequitur, devoid of its context. While we’d like that to be true, it simply is not. One cannot, for example, accept an unrepentant arsonist’s declarations on the need to reform corrupt firefighting organizations uncritically, no matter how insightful any of the observations may be.
The notion that anyone opposing this administration’s messaging on Gold Standard science is doing so merely as knee-jerk political opposition is explicitly insincere. Now, usually it is unwise—if not impossible—to judge an argument based on the perceived sincerity of its author. Not so here. Why? Because any genuine exploration of this topic could not credibly omit how this particular message is being used—that is, what actions its words are apparently motivating by way of a so-called commitment to “Gold Standard science.”
In this case, many relevant actions are not remotely obscure. Rather, they are public. On one hand, you have the FDA overriding true gold standard evidence (i.e., its recent Covid vaccine policies) based on vibes, riffing on the mere possibility of harms that were undetectable in large, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials, to say nothing of the massive real-world data that has since emerged. On another, you have HHS/CDC being co-opted into “studying” autism and vaccines, led by individuals who would not know actual gold standard science if it bludgeoned them on the head. Further, you have RFK Jr.’s newly-installed panel comprising the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voting on thimerosal in vaccines based on a single brief error-ridden, amateurish, presentation delivered by a known anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist, precisely one day after the HHS Secretary’s office itself required that the CDC’s own rigorous briefing document on that topic be removed from its website.
At baseline, arguments can be made and received in good faith. However, when evidence explicitly contradicts that allowance, we are under no obligation to extend the courtesy any further. In fact, those who not only continue the charade but malign those who happened to have noticed this have become complicit in the grift.
Best,
Jeremy
My colleague’s response was brief: “Amen!”
Chaser. Fun with Google and ChatGPT.
I was curious what I might learn about the essay from the internet. First, I wanted to know who I had been writing about. So, I Googled the author of the Science essay. Ah, it’s a Trump White House official—the current Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and an advisor to President Trump. Now, I admit that I have no exposure to this person. He might be a great guy, for all I know. But this essay is not a good introduction, I must say.
Next, I asked ChatGPT to analyze the Kratsios's original essay. (This turned out to be apropos, because Kratsios is apparently quite interested in AI, I learned.) Finally, I asked ChatGPT to analyze my response. (Note: I didn’t tell ChatGPT that I wrote the response).
Here’s that “conversation”…
Me: Assess the sincerity and strength of this essay: [pasted in].
ChatGPT: This editorial uses the language of scientific reform to position the policy as both principled and overdue. But its sincerity is questionable, and its strength is undermined by inconsistencies and rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Here's a breakdown:
Sincerity: Mixed to Low
Superficially sincere: The editorial aligns itself with legitimate concerns raised by the scientific community—reproducibility, transparency, bias. It references credible efforts like the 2014 Science editorial, the Center for Open Science, and the National Academies report. This lends an air of good faith.
But motives appear suspect: The core of the editorial is not a neutral call for better science but a defense of a politically controversial executive order issued by Trump, a president with a well-documented history of undermining scientific agencies (e.g., sidelining experts on climate change, COVID-19, and environmental regulation). The sudden embrace of "rigor" appears opportunistic, especially given that Kratsios was Trump's former CTO and has served as a political appointee, not a scientist.
Framing critics as reactionary: The editorial dismisses legitimate concerns from the scientific community as “reactionary” or driven by policy preferences. This discredits sincere opposition without engaging it, casting doubt on the writer's own sincerity.
Strength: Superficial and Rhetorically Slippery
Strong in tone, weak in argument: The piece is rhetorically polished and appeals to shared values (rigor, accountability, transparency). But it doesn’t address specifics about what the executive order actually does, how implementation might distort science, or why scientists are skeptical—aside from suggesting they are politically biased.
Cherry-picked evidence: It invokes previous scientific efforts toward reform as justification for a government directive, but fails to distinguish between internal reform and external political mandate. The implied equivalence is disingenuous: scientists advocating for change is not the same as political actors imposing it.
False equivalence and politicization: Kratsios claims the order depoliticizes science while simultaneously portraying the scientific establishment as a political interest group. This undermines the argument—it politicizes in the name of preventing politicization.
Conclusion
Kratsios presents the executive order as a sincere, science-forward initiative, but the piece reads as a strategically crafted defense of political interference in science, cloaked in the language of reform. It borrows credibility from legitimate scientific conversations but weaponizes them to delegitimize critics and distract from the administration's own politicization of research.
Verdict:
Sincerity: ⚠️ Performative and selective
Strength of Argument: 🎯 Superficial polish, little depth
Strategic Purpose: 🛡️ Defense against criticism, not a genuine call for reform.
What AI thought of my reply.
Of course, I wanted to know what ChatGPT’s thought of my reply. (I didn’t tell it that I wrote it.) Here’s how that went…
Me: Analyze this reply [pasted in, as per above].
ChatGPT: This reply is rhetorically sharp and philosophically grounded, offering a devastating rebuttal to the Kratsios editorial. It makes a clear and persuasive case that the executive order on "Gold Standard Science" cannot be assessed independently of the political context and the bad faith actors advancing it.
Here’s a breakdown of its effectiveness:
Tone and Rhetoric: Forceful, but Controlled
Direct and assertive: The comparison to an “unrepentant arsonist” reforming firefighting departments is vivid, maybe even a bit incendiary—but it lands because it captures the cognitive dissonance the writer is highlighting.
Accusatory, but not sloppy: The reply doesn’t casually label people as insincere; it builds a case that evidence of insincerity is abundant, and that it would be naive or willfully blind to pretend otherwise.
Emotion is present, but not overwhelming: The tone is frustrated but principled—this isn’t a rant, it’s a well-reasoned refusal to separate “policy” from the track record of those enacting it.
Argument Structure: Sophisticated and Coherent
Context matters: The core claim is that the Trump administration’s past and ongoing actions—e.g., undermining the FDA, pushing vaccine-autism links, and suppressing expert input—invalidate the supposed neutrality of the executive order. This is logically sound: authorship and motive matter when assessing policy credibility, especially in domains requiring trust.
Sincerity as evidence, not assumption: The author directly addresses the typical caution against questioning sincerity—and then justifies doing so by pointing to verifiable, public actions that contradict the supposed goals of the EO. This is key: it’s not ad hominem, it’s pattern recognition.
Specific, damning examples:
FDA ignoring high-quality RCT data.
HHS and CDC embracing fringe pseudoscience.
ACIP decisions distorted by pressure from political appointees.
These are concrete, observable phenomena that support the central claim: the EO is being wielded not to uphold scientific standards, but to undermine them while claiming the opposite.
Moral framing: The closing argument shifts from critique to moral stance, saying that continued complicity is no longer neutral. It draws a line between good faith debate and enabling a disinformation agenda.
Assessment
Sincerity: High. The reply has a transparent logic grounded in observed facts, not ideological reflex.
Strength: Very strong. It combines rhetorical flair with empirical reference and philosophical clarity.
Effectiveness: High. It reframes the conversation from abstract principle to accountability—a necessary shift when facing manipulation disguised as reform.
Verdict
This is an excellent counterpoint—not just a rebuttal to Kratsios, but a broader case for why context and credibility are inseparable from content in any sincere discourse about science and public policy. It hits hard, but it earns the forcefulness through well-argued, specific, and justified critique.
Closing thoughts.
Thanks, ChatGPT! Now, I could have sent my reply (or a modified version of it) to Science as a Letter to the Editor (would you have published it, Holden?), but I decided not to for several reasons. Chief among them: posting it here would get these ideas out much faster—not to mention a 100% chance of being accepted for publication!
Bottom line: I don’t love questioning the sincerity of arguments. Instead, I prefer to focus on the merits. However, in this case, I had to do both. Sometimes that’s necessary.
What are your reactions? Should I share more email exchanges like these? Did the ChatGPT angle make it more fun, or was that unnecessary? Please share your thoughts in the Comments section!
If you have information about any of the unfolding stories we are following, please email me or find me on Signal at InsideMedicine.88.
Yes! More of this sort of thing would be very welcome.
I found this post excellent. It was sharp, thoughtful, and exactly the kind of behind-the-scenes perspective we need more of. I completely agree with your analysis of the essay and especially appreciated how you exposed the bad-faith framing beneath its polished surface. Please continue sharing these kinds of exchanges. They offer valuable clarity on complicated issues and help reveal the tactics being used to undermine evidence-based science.