Effective Date: 

2026-08-19

SECTION 1.  PURPOSE.

.01         This Department Administrative Order (“DAO”) establishes a framework for ensuring that all scientific activities, including the generation, use, and communication of scientific information at the Department of Commerce (“Department”) adhere to the tenets of “Gold Standard Science” as outlined in Executive Order 14303 (May 23, 2025) and defined in the Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”) Guidance for Gold Standard Science (June 23, 2025).  These policies aim to promote transparency, reproducibility, and integrity related to scientific research and information, including that used in decision-making, to maintain public trust and advance U.S. leadership in science and technology.

SECTION 2.  AUTHORITY.

.01         This DAO is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. §§ 301, 302 and 15 U.S.C. §§ 1511, 1512.

.02          This DAO is issued in accordance with Executive Order 14303 and "Agency Guidance for Implementing Gold Standard Science in the Conduct & Management of Scientific Activities” issued by the Executive Office of the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy on June 23, 2025.

.03         This Order revises the policy and procedures outlined in all prior versions of DAO 216-23.

SECTION 3.  DEFINITIONS.

.01         “Covered Individuals” under this DAO include: 

a.            Government Personnel:  Federal employees (as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 2105), political appointees, trainees, interns, and advisory committee members, including all members of Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Committees (5 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.); and

b.           Non-Government Associates:  Contractors, cooperators, affiliates, associates, partners, co-regulators, permittees, lessees, grantees, and volunteers acting pursuant to an agreement, contract, statement of work, memorandum of understanding, financial assistance award, or other document governing their relationship with the Department.

.02           “Department” refers to the Department of Commerce, including all operating units, including Department bureaus, offices, and administrations. 

.03           “Employee” shall apply to all persons in the Department who meet the definition of the term in 5 U.S.C. § 2105. 

.04           “Gold Standard Science” means science that is conducted in a manner that is: 

a.             Reproducible;

b.             Transparent;

c.             Communicative of error and uncertainty;

d.             Collaborative and interdisciplinary;

e.             Skeptical of its findings and assumptions;

f.              Structured for falsifiability of hypotheses;

g.             Subject to unbiased peer review;

h.             Accepting of negative results as positive outcomes; and

i.              Without conflicts of interest. 

.05           “Influential Scientific Information” is scientific, financial, or statistical information that the Department can reasonably determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or important private sector decisions, as defined in the “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies,” 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002).

.06           “Science” refers to the full spectrum of scientific endeavors, including basic science, applied science, evaluation science, behavioral and social sciences, public health and medical sciences, life and earth sciences, engineering, physical sciences, economics, or probability and statistics.  It also refers to the scientific and technical information derived from these endeavors.

.07           “Scientific Activities” are activities that involve the application of scientific methods and theories, and include, but are not limited to: data collection, inventorying, monitoring, statistical analysis, surveying, observations, experimentation, study, scientific research, integration, economic analysis, forecasting, predictive analytics, modeling, technology development, and scientific assessment. 

.08           “Scientific Information” is defined as factual inputs, data, models, analyses, technical information, or scientific assessments related Science as defined in Section 3.05 above.  This includes but is not limited to such disciplines as the behavioral and social sciences, public health and medical sciences, life and earth sciences, engineering, physical sciences, economic data, or probability and statistics.  This also includes any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts, statistics, or data, in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative (verbal), or audiovisual forms.

.09         “Research Misconduct” is defined as the fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results including Scientific Activities.  Research Misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. 

a.            “Fabrication” is making up data or results and recording or reporting them; 

b.           “Falsification” is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record; and 

c.            “Plagiarism” is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. 

.10         “Scientific Integrity” is defined as the adherence to professional practice, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty, objectivity, and transparency when conducting, managing, peer reviewing, using the results of, and communicating about Scientific Activities and Scientific Information. 

SECTION 4.  SCOPE.

This DAO covers all Department actions related to Science, Scientific Activities and Scientific Information, except were exempted by law or by the Secretary of Commerce for reasons of national security, research security, privacy, or proprietary interests.

SECTION 5.  ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

.01         The Secretary of Commerce shall designate a senior Department Employee to act as the Department Scientific Integrity Officer (SIO) to oversee the implementation of this Order and ensure compliance by Covered Individuals and Operating Unit heads.  The Department SIO shall report to the Deputy Secretary.  In absence of such designation, the Deputy Secretary or their designee shall serve as the Department SIO.

.02         The Department’s Scientific Integrity Officer, shall lead training and outreach initiatives to facilitate awareness and understanding of this Order by Covered Individual.  The Department’s Scientific Integrity Officer may work with similar counterparts in individual Operating Units to create and distribute training materials to Covered Individuals in those operating Units. 

SECTION 6.  GENERATION OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION.

.01         Covered Individuals shall not engage in Research Misconduct nor knowingly rely on information resulting from such misconduct.

.02          The following tenets, derived from the OSTP Guidance for Gold Standard Science (June 23, 2025), shall be incorporated into the processes for which the Department generates, manages, interprets, communicates, and uses Scientific Information. Department operating units are encouraged to adapt implementation of these tenets to their unique missions while upholding scientific merit and excellence. 

a.            Reproducibility: Reproducibility in science is the ability of independent researchers to test a hypothesis through multiple methods and consistently achieve results that confirm or refute it, ensuring findings are generalizable and robust across different approaches. To advance reproducible and replicable science, Operating Units shall prioritize disciplined scientific methods and experimental design. This includes requiring clear, standardized, and justifiable protocols; comprehensive documentation; robust statistical methods; adequate sample sizes; validated methodologies; and appropriate controls.  Operating Units should encourage depositing raw data and code that contributes to research outcomes in publicly accessible repositories, where appropriate, to facilitate exact replication and support reproducibility through diverse methodological approaches.  Operating Units should address barriers (such as incomplete reporting or resource constraints) by fostering training, shared infrastructure, and incentives for open science practices. 

b.            Transparency: Consistent with this tenet, the Department shall prioritize transparency in Scientific Activities to ensure accountability and public trust.  Transparency includes prioritizing clear, detailed reporting of methodologies, making raw data and analytical tools publicly available when feasible and lawful, and disclosing funding sources or conflicts of interest.  Data sharing plans should be required in grant applications, to include timelines and platforms for public release, unless prohibited by law. Consistent with federal requirements and authorities, Department operating units should require data sharing and management plans for all sponsored research.  Data sharing and management plans should include timelines and designated platforms for public release.  As feasible, Operating Units shall adopt and support standardized guidelines, metadata formats and data-sharing platforms to ensure accessibility and interoperability.  Lastly, transparency also extends to peer and merit review processes, and Operating Units shall, as appropriate and feasible, disclose review criteria publicly, and share anonymized reviewer comments with applicants. 

c.            Structured for Falsifiability of Hypothesis:  To the extent practicable, when developing scientific research and related Scientific Activities, Covered Individuals should formulate precise, testable hypotheses, design experiments with measurable outcomes, and employ rigorous methodologies—such as controlled experiments, randomized trials, or advanced statistical tests—to systematically challenge predictions.  When structuring science for falsifiability of hypotheses is infeasible, Operating Units shall identify alternative practices (such as rigorous documentation of methods, assumptions, biases, and uncertainty, and peer review) to uphold the intent of the tenet.  The Department shall promote practices that enhance falsifiability of hypotheses, such as pre-registration of study protocols, use of appropriate control groups, as applicable, and transparent reporting of null or unexpected results in publications and data repositories.  Hypotheses and conclusions should be based on empirical evidence that can be challenged or disproven.

d.            Subject to Unbiased Peer Review: Subjecting science to unbiased peer review (also referred to as merit review) refers to the impartial and independent evaluation, by qualified experts, of both research proposals, data, models and code, and manuscripts that report results of federally-supported research, to ensure validity, quality, and credibility prior to funding, publication, or dissemination. 

1.            Manuscripts and communications  that report Scientific Information or the results of Scientific Activities, including reports and Fundamental Research Communications, must undergo rigorous, impartial peer review by qualified experts free from conflicts of interest.  Peer review processes must be documented and rely on well-defined, transparent review criteria.  Operating Units should ensure appropriate reviewer selection, prioritizing expertise, independence, and viewpoint diversity, with clear disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.  Operating units should consider adoption of double-blind peer review where appropriate and feasible. 

2.            The Department shall prioritize unbiased peer review to advance sound science in the review, selection, and awarding of extramural proposals for Scientific Activities through federal financial assistance awards and contracts, including competitive and discretionary awards.  The review, selection, and awarding of Federal grants and contracts must be consistent with relevant provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations or 2 CFR Part 200 (Uniform Guidance), its supplements, and other relevant regulations.  Awards must be granted based on merit, without bias in the selection of awardees, in accordance with the Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other relevant laws. 

e.            Communicative of Error and Uncertainties:  Communicating error and uncertainty in science entails the clear, precise, and accurate disclosure of limitations, variability, and potential sources of error in research findings, enabling others to critically assess, replicate, and extend the work.  This practice upholds the integrity of new knowledge and provides a trustworthy foundation for future research.  Operating Units shall prioritize this communication by ensuring research reporting includes quantitative measures of uncertainties such as confidence intervals, error margins, or sensitivity analyses alongside clear explanations of methodological constraints and assumptions.  Operating Units should promote cautious, evidence-based language in reports, publications, and public communications and discourage speculative claims or extrapolations that extend well beyond the data’s scope, especially when science is used in an operational or regulatory context.

f.           Skeptical of its Findings and Assumptions:  Maintaining constructive skepticism refers to the critical and open-minded evaluation of research findings, methodologies, and underlying assumptions to ensure their validity, robustness, and reliability.  This approach encourages scientists to challenge conclusions, explore alternative hypotheses, and identify potential biases or errors, with a key component being actively avoiding confirmation bias the tendency to favor evidence that supports pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses while dismissing contradictory data.  Operating Units shall foster this culture through policies that emphasize critical evaluation, transparency, and objectivity, including support for adversarial collaborations where teams with differing hypotheses design studies to rigorously test results.  Operating Units shall also fund replication studies and statistical validation methods and cultivate environments that incentivize critical inquiry by supporting fora where research premises and results are thoroughly evaluated, potential overinterpretations are challenged, and alternative explanations explored.

g.           Collaborative and Interdisciplinary:  Collaborative and interdisciplinary science refers to the strategic integration of a wide range of expertise, methodologies, and perspectives across disciplines and sectors to address complex scientific challenges and catalyze transformative discoveries.  This approach fosters synergy, leverages complementary skills, and promotes the synthesis of ideas to raise new questions and tackle multifaceted problems that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries. Operating Units shall prioritize these approaches, including recognizing limitations in an individual’s or Operating Unit’s expertise and engaging other divisions within a Department, or other agencies, for complementary expert support. Further, Operating Units shall foster partnerships across the Department, disciplines, institutions, and sectors (including external scientific communities of practice, such as scientific and professional associations and conferences) by supporting joint funding opportunities, interdisciplinary research centers, user facilities, and accessible data-sharing platforms. 

h.           Accepting of Negative Results as Positive Outcomes:  The Department recognizes that negative or unexpected results can provide valuable contributions to scientific knowledge, and foster integrity and innovation.  To the extent practicable, Operating Units shall report all outcomes of Scientific Activities, including negative or unexpected results, in publications and publicly accessible data repositories, accompanied by clear, detailed documentation of methods, analyses, and limitations.  All negative or unexpected results must be assessed and documented with the same rigor as positive results.  Where covered individuals are unable to report negative or unexpected requests in third-party publications due to limitations in the publisher’s guidance, they should seek opportunities to make such supplemental information publicly available.

i.           Free from Conflicts of Interest:  Conducting Science without conflicts of interest refers to ensuring that research is designed, executed, reviewed, and reported free from financial, personal, or institutional influences that could bias outcomes or undermine objectivity.  

1.           Consistent with the Federal Standards of Ethical Conduct (5 CFR Part 2635), statutory financial conflicts-of-interest prohibitions (18 USC 208), and related provisions, Federal employees must avoid financial, personal, and/or institutional conflicts of interest, including in the conduct and management of scientific research and use, interpretation, and communication of scientific and technical information. Federal employees must recuse themselves from any particular matter for which they have an actual or perceived conflict, unless an allowed exception applies.

2.           Consistent with 2 CFR Part 200 and the Federal Acquisition Regulations for the solicitation of research proposals and rigorous peer review of proposals for scientific and/or technical merit without conflicts of interest, Operating Units must implement protocols for standard disclosures by applicants and peer reviewers to obtain necessary information to assess financial, personal, or institutional conflicts of interest. Operating Units must ensure that effective processes are established for the management of merit-based peer review of research proposals and the management of peer reviewers.

3.           Operating Units shall ensure that peer reviewers of Department research of scientific activities are free from conflicts of interest, including any methodological or organizational conflicts of interest (for example, if a peer reviewer worked on a closely-related project).  Peer reviewers external to the Operating Unit must disclose any financial, personal, or institutional conflicts of interest related to the manuscript or report being reviewed. 

SECTION 7.  USE, INTERPRETATION, AND COMMUNICATION OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION.

.01         Consistent with public laws and Department Administrative Orders, and in accordance with Executive Order 14303, Department employees and other Covered Individuals shall adhere to the following in the use, interpretation, and communication of Scientific Information:

a.         Scientific Integrity in Department Decision-Making:  Covered Individuals should ensure that Scientific Information used in Department decision-making was generated in a manner consistent with the tenets of Gold Standard Science to the extent practicable, and relevant provisions of the Information Quality Act and Foundations for Evidenced-Based Policymaking Act are followed.

b.         Use of Scientific Information in Department Decision-Making and Policy or Legal Determinations:  Unless otherwise specified by law, Covered Individuals shall incorporate the following requirements in the use, interpretation, and communication of Scientific Information in analyses, evaluations, and determinations related to Department decision-making or policy or legal determinations:

1.         Uncertainty:  When using scientific information in Department decision-making, employees shall transparently acknowledge and document uncertainties, including how uncertainty propagates throughout any models used in the analysis.

2.         Legal Compliance: Use science that comports with the legal standards applicable to the determination or decision, including when evaluating the realistic or reasonably foreseeable effects of a determination or decision.

3.         Weight of Scientific Evidence:  When scientific or technological information is used to inform Department evaluations and subsequent decision-making, Covered Individuals shall apply a “weight of scientific evidence” approach. “Weight of scientific evidence” means an approach to scientific evaluation in which each piece of relevant information is considered based on its quality and relevance, and then transparently integrated with other relevant information to inform the scientific evaluation prior to making a judgment about the scientific evaluation.  Quality and relevance determinations, at a minimum, should include consideration of study design, fitness for purpose, replicability, peer review, and transparency and reliability of data. 

4.         Assumptions and Scenarios:  Covered Individuals shall be transparent about the likelihood of assumptions and scenarios, when relied upon.  Highly unlikely or overly precautionary assumptions and scenarios should only be used in decision-making if legally required or otherwise pertinent to an action being considered by the Department or its operating units.

5.         Peer Review:  Consistent with the Information Quality Act and associated OMB guidance, Influential Scientific Information used in Department decision-making or policy determinations shall be subject to peer review.  Reviewers must evaluate the objectivity of the underlying data including third-party data or models and the sensitivity of conclusions to analytic assumptions.  When peer-reviewed information changes significantly, such as from reviewer comments or additional agency analysis, a second peer review should be conducted.

6.         Transparency About Uncertainty:  Covered Individuals shall communicate Scientific Information consistent with the results of the relevant analysis and evaluation and, to the extent that uncertainty is present, the degree of uncertainty should be communicated.  Communications involving a scientific model or information derived from a scientific model should reference material assumptions informing model outputs. 

c.         Operating Units shall establish guidance for the requirements of data sharing and management plans for all Department-sponsored scientific research, and shall establish guidance and supporting repositories to make the publications and data from federally-sponsored research publicly available and openly licensed where practicable.  Operating Units may leverage repositories supported by other Operating Units, other federal agencies, or approved third-party repositories that meet federal requirements.

d.         The Department and its Operating Units shall make publicly available (1) the data, analyses, and conclusions associated with scientific and technological information produced or used that the Department reasonably assesses will have a clear and substantial effect on important public policies or important private sector decisions (influential scientific information), including data cited in peer-reviewed literature; and (2) the models and analyses (including, as applicable, the source code for such models) the Department used to generate such influential scientific information. Employees may not invoke exemption 5 to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)) to prevent disclosure of such models unless authorized in writing to do so by the Secretary following prior notice to the OSTP Director.

SECTION 8.  ENFORCEMENT AND OVERSIGHT.

.01         The Department Scientific Integrity Officer will oversee the implementation of this Order and ensure compliance by Covered Individuals. 

.02         All Covered Individuals shall incorporate the tenants of Gold Standard Science into their processes used to generate, manage, interpret, communicate, and use Scientific Information to the extent practicable.  In cases where failure to adhere to the tenants of Gold Standard Science raises to an allegation of Research Misconduct or violation of Scientific Integrity brought against Covered Individuals, those allegations shall be addressed pursuant to the Department’s Scientific Integrity DAO. 

SECTION 9.  EFFECT ON OTHER ORDERS AND LAWS.

.01         This Order establishes Department Administrative Order 216-27, Establishing Gold Standard Science in The Department Of Commerce To Cement America’s Global Technological Leadership and Usher in The Golden Age Of American Innovation.

.02         This DAO otherwise is in addition to, and does not alter the requirements of any other applicable federal statutes, regulations, or policies, or other operating unit or Department administrative orders.  These include, but are not limited to: 

a.         Department Administrative Order 219-1, “Public Communications” (2008) 

b.         Information Quality Act (Public Law 106-554, Section 15) 

c.         Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies; Republication. 67 FR 8452 (2002) 

d.         Office of Management and Budget, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. 70 FR 2664 (2005) 

e.         Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum M-05-03 (2004), Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

f.         Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum M-19-15 (2019), Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act

g.         Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum M-19-18 (2019), Federal Data Strategy – A Framework for Consistency

h.         Federal Policy on Research Misconduct, 65 F.R. 76,260 (December 6, 2000)

i.         Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 

j.         OMB Circular A-130

k.         5 CFR Part 2635 – Standard of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch 

l.         2 CFR Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.

m.         Department Administrative Order 202-751, “Discipline” (1980)

.03         This DAO shall not be interpreted to conflict with the rights of an employee under the law, including, but not limited to, the following: 

a.         The provisions within Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute 5 U.S. Code Chapter 75 – Adverse Actions, relating to disciplinary action of employees; and 

b.         The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, as amended (5 U.S.C. §§ 1201 et seq.), Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Special Counsel, and Employee Right of Action. 

Signed by: Secretary of Commerce

Office of Primary Interest: Office of Policy and Strategic Planning