Introduction

Modern science’s professional culture prizes positive results far above negative results. Ph.D.s, grant funding, publications, promotions, lateral moves to more prestigious universities, professional esteem, and public attention all depend upon positive results that seem to reveal something new. Scientists therefore send their negative results into the file drawer. Recent studies provide evidence that publication bias toward positive results afflicts such diverse fields as climate science, psychology, sociology, and even dentistry. Federal grant programs contribute significantly to this problem, since they provide a very large financial and reputational incentive to publish a positive result.

Federal grant programs should ensure that publication bias has not systematically distorted the disciplines they fund. Our model bill reduces the government contribution to publication bias by requiring each granting program to catalogue and describe the proportions of positive research results to negative and null research results, and not to fund any research grant program, or scientific discipline, which reports more than 65% positive results during five consecutive years of funding.

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 Assessments. On an annual basis, starting no later than {Month Day, Year}, the {Director of the National Science Foundation} shall submit to the {Executive Branch Office}, the {Senate Committee}, and the {House Committee} a report cataloguing and describing the proportions of positive research results to negative and null research results in each research grant program the {National Science Foundation} operates and in each scientific discipline to which it provides dedicated funding.
2. Research Grant Funding. After {Month Day, Year}, the {National Science Foundation} may not fund any research grant program, or provide dedicated funding to any scientific discipline, which reports more than 65% positive results during five consecutive years of funding.
3. 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 (3); 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 (3).
4. 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.