The Rise of “Gold Standard Science”—And How It’s Being Weaponized

Arecent executive order from the White House, titled “Restoring Gold Standard Science,” has quickly become one of the most consequential (and controversial) developments in federal science policy. Marketed as a push for research that is “transparent, rigorous, and impactful,” the order promises science that clearly communicates uncertainty, questions its own conclusions, and guides evidence-based decision making. On its face, this sounds like a welcome commitment to scientific integrity.

But public health researchers, scientific societies, and nearly 4,900 signatories to an open letter argue that the policy isn’t about strengthening science, it’s about controlling it. The order gives political appointees broad authority to define what counts as “good” or “bad” science, and allows federal scientists to be disciplined or removed for challenging evidence that officials disfavor. Critics warn this creates a “Fool’s Gold” standard that allows evidence to be selectively elevated or buried depending on political goals.

In the months since the order was issued, those fears have become reality. A series of agency actions in September 2025 reveals how “gold standard science” is being used to erase data, dismiss health equity, and undermine long-standing public health metrics:

• EPA moved to stop collecting greenhouse gas emissions data, eliminating core evidence needed to track climate-related health risks.
• CDC declared “health equity” an ideological concept, contradicting decades of rigorous research and marginalizing work that documents and addresses inequities.
• The administration announced it would stop measuring food insecurity, despite rising rates and validated national surveillance tools.
• The president claimed Tylenol in pregnancy causes autism, without evidence, transparency, or any acknowledgment of scientific uncertainty—violating the very tenets of “gold standard science.”

Taken together, these actions reflect a strategic “no data, no problem” approach: if harmful exposures or inequities cannot be measured, they can be politically ignored.

The article warns that this approach echoes the myth of King Midas—what appears golden is actually destructive. Rather than protecting scientific integrity, the administration’s version of “gold standard science” turns evidence into a political weapon and threatens the ability of researchers, agencies, and communities to document harm.

Fortunately, advocacy groups—including the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Data Rescue Project, and Stand Up for Science—are organizing to challenge censorship, safeguard federal datasets, and defend scientific freedom.

The author concludes that true “gold standard” science requires more than rejecting political interference—it demands a commitment to equity, accountability, and uncovering the conditions that allow all communities to thrive.