Donate Join
×
Donate  /  Join
Reproducible Grants Act

The National Association of Scholars upholds the standards of a liberal arts education that fosters intellectual freedom, searches for the truth, and promotes virtuous citizenship.

Introduction

Too much modern scientific research data is not available to the public. Research which is not available cannot be reproduced. Government policy should not be based upon research which is not publicly available. Nor should federal grants fund research which is not publicly available.

Our model bill restricts new federal grant funding to publicly accessible research. It also requires an individual grantee to convert his entire body of research into publicly accessible research, or to attest which portions of his body of research are not publicly accessible, and therefore are not reproducible. The bill further stipulates that no research attested by the researcher to be irreproducible research may be used to justify any future significant regulatory action or highly influential scientific assessment.

This bill makes no exceptions for 1) research hidden behind a journal’s paywall; or 2) research which has not been made public on grounds of confidentiality. We believe that academic journals should have moved long since to open-access publication, and that this rule will provide a welcome incentive for them to make that change. We also believe that there are many reliable ways to de-identify data, and that private information need not be endangered by requiring public accessibility. If policymakers are concerned about these issues, however, we encourage them to modify this model bill to allow exceptions on these grounds.

We have not made this bill retroactive—in other words, we have not said that existing regulations should be rescinded if they rely on research which is irreproducible because the data is not publicly available. We suggest a procedure for rescinding existing regulations based on irreproducible research in the Reproducible Policy Act.

Our model bill requires individual researchers either to convert their entire body of research or to attest that it is irreproducible. We believe the appropriate level of accountability is that of the researcher rather than that of the individual piece of published research. Federal money also should provide incentives to researchers to use best existing practices of transparency and reproducibility in all their research, and not just in what is publicly funded.

Our model bill refers to the {National Science Foundation}. The bill should be adjusted by policymakers to refer to some or all individual federal agencies funding science grants. Similar references to the {Director of the National Science Foundation}, the {Executive Branch Office}, the {Senate Committee}, and the {House Committee} also should be adjusted appropriately by policymakers.


Model Legislative Text

  1. Research Grant Funding. The {National Science Foundation} may only fund publicly accessible research in all grant awards awarded after {Month Day, Year}, including categorical grants, discretionary grants, formula grants, and research grants.
  2. Researcher Grant Conditions. The {National Science Foundation} may only fund a researcher:
    1. whose entire body of research published after {Month Day, Year} is publicly accessible research; and
    2. whose entire body of research published before {Month Day, Year} is:
      1. converted into publicly accessible research within one year of {Month Day, Year}, or
      2. attested by the researcher to be irreproducible research.
  3. Irreproducible Research Consequences. Research attested by the researcher to be irreproducible research, as described in subsection (2)(a)(ii), may not be used to justify any significant regulatory action or highly influential scientific assessment promulgated after {Month Day, Year}.
  4. Waivers. The {Director of the National Science Foundation} may provide an individual waiver for subsection (2) if:
    1. on an annual basis, starting no later than {Month Day, Year}, he submits to the {Executive Branch Office}, the {Senate Committee}, and the {House Committee} a report cataloguing, describing, and explaining each waiver granted under his authority in subsection (4); and
    2. he creates within one year of {Month Day, Year} a set and detailed procedure to allow private individuals and organizations to challenge each waiver granted under his authority in subsection (4).
  5. Severability. If any provision of this chapter, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this chapter and the application of its provisions to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
  6. Definitions.
    1. “Publicly accessible research” shall be defined as research whose registered report (including protocols), research data, associated protocols, computer codes, data analysis scripts, recorded factual materials, and statistical analyses are archived on an online digital repository in a manner sufficient for continuing independent inspection, replication, reproduction, and/or verification. This online digital repository shall have archival and accessibility capacities at least equal to those possessed by the Open Science Framework on December 31, {Year}.
    2. “Significant regulatory action” shall be defined as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:
      1. have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
      2. create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
      3. materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
      4. raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866.
    3. “Highly influential scientific assessment” shall be defined as any scientific assessment, as determined by the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator or the {Director of the National Science Foundation}, which could have a potential impact of more than $500 million in any one year on either the public or private sector, or whose dissemination is novel, controversial, precedent-setting, or has significant interagency interest.