Progress and Problems: Government Scientists Report on Scientific Integrity at Four Agencies Appendix D: Open-ended Responses Below are all open-ended responses received on the survey. Responses have not been edited for grammar or spelling errors. They are displayed as respondents wrote them, with identifying information redacted to protect anonymity. In some cases, large portions of responses had to be concealed to protect the identities of respondents. Question 39. How do you think the mission of the [AGENCY] and the integrity of the scientific work produced by the [AGENCY] could best be improved? The below open-ended responses are sorted by agency and categorized by subject, in order of frequency. The percentages in each category represent the proportion of coded text on that topic, rather than the proportion of respondents. CDC Twenty-six percent (467) of the 1,764 CDC survey respondents provided written responses. Management and Leadership (Mentioned in 26% of coded responses) Reduce/relax the beaurocratic procedures especially regarding publication of scientific work As a leading federal government agency, CDC should pay more attention to avoid nepotism within the same unit (branch or maybe division). This is especially a problem in the leadership level. It created unfair situation to other employee. People who enjoy these advantage often tend to chose their own favorite colleagues in important tasks, or assignments. This in turns created more opportunities to promote people of their own circle. The best man/woman for the particular task could therefore sacrifice because of this established culture of nepotism. OMB is a pain in the ass - the Paperwork Reduction Act is a joke. It significantly hampers CDC's ability to quickly assess emerging situations, including outbreaks, due to its imposition of burdensome requirements for approval of assessment tools. The IRB exists to ensure that CDC staff conduct research that is in line with scientific core values (Justice, Autonomy, Beneficence). OMB seems to exist solely to make work more difficult. Would be good to remove some of the Associate Director of Science barriers to publishing recommendations as the science suggests - rather than how the ADS wishes them to be published. The bias of senior management toward epidemiology and toward graduates of the Epidemic Intelligence Service Training Program as it all time high levels. Many senior managers (from Branch level up) have minimal laboratory science training but they are tasked with directing the work of laboratory staff. This is an old issue that originated with the origination of the CDC from laboratory and epidemiology parts of the public health service. It has proceeded to the point that few senior managerial hires come from institutions outside the CDC and it is almost considered a right of passage for EIS staff to move from training to team leads, then to branch chiefs, then to Division 1 Directors, then Center Directors, and even to CDC director. Many bench scientists often wonder if it is possible to do science at the CDC and competitive projects and postdoctoral positions that are approved must pass through a heavy handed application of "public health" qualifications. Support and strengthen (regain CDC's status in) experimental laboratory research. Integrity, I can't imagine, but maybe removal of ILB's top management. I work in a small office. The delay or release of our science is due to the fact that managers are so overloaded and unable to delegate. The lack of trust between them makes them very "possessive" of their scientific projects which impedes cooperation and creativity. TRUST: trust the scientists to do their jobs. There is a pervasive feeling of distrust from above among the scientists. This is evidenced by the programs being implemented such as the Laboratory Safety Committee (How many millions of man-hours have NOT resulted in accidents? How many millions of dollars have been spent making new rules when the issue came from a couple of people who did nto follow established rules?), and the nonsensical time-drain, QMS. Speed up approval procedures on urgent work and remove unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles of which there are many The administrative tasks have increase significantly over the last 5 five and are affecting the research effort. More interagency intrrac Structuring the organization where scientists can maximize their scientific expertise and assistance while diminishing the administrative load. Also, leadership appears generally to consist of medical officers with little to no competence-based training in leadership, management, and work-force ethics. This, in my experience, produces tension due to the lack of understanding or appreciation of staff, and inhibits support of scientific integrity. The CDC management need to engage them selves and support the the scientific community in all process of scientific work To diversify scientific directions across CDC laboratories while keeping priorities for some research problems I think the best way for improvement is getting back to doing science and staying out of politics. This is best accomplished by hiring the smartest person available to do the job. Many years ago this was the practice and it is why the US was so strong technically that peaked in the 1960's. But since that time politics has eroded this hiring practice as the current people being promoted have political skills and are far less technically educated but can enforce the wishes of the boss. It has become corrupt. There is no fairness. For any new promotion a person has already been selected by management. It is a power game where the objective is to keep it and gather more. The people needed to solve the technical problems are just a task that needs to make some progress. Keeping power, just like in politics, is management's major concern. So small numbers of technical people are kept to do the bare minimum of work. Lip service is given to the importance of this scientific work but the reality is that the engineers and scientists are not promoted. I am a PhD research engineer with ## years of experience and have published dozens of papers and I am still a GS-12 step## but I am not the only one like this at my office. The newest job opening here is for a branch 2 chief. It will be a GS-14. The applicant has already been selected by the boss via the grapevine news and will be my new supervisor with a B.S. degree in engineering. It happens all the time.. Apply disciplinary action equally to the managers and the perpetrators. Have all the Directors for Science and the Human Subjects Reviewers under the supervision of the Associate Directors for Science at each organizational level. For example, The center ADSs are supervised by the Center directors, and not by the Agency ADS. the Division ADS reports to the Division director and not to the Center ADs. The country based ADSs report to the Country Director and not to their home based ADS. Decreasing the pushing down of administrative duties to the subject matter experts and let them get back in the lab with the junior scientists. In the prior decades, jr. scientists were trained by the Sr. scientists in the labs or epi offices. Now we hire contractors and fellows, give them an online training safety course and turn them loose because we are so tied up with surveys and paperwork to actually do science. The safety issues of late were ALL inexperienced scientists not the long term ones. The reason, the long term scientists were trained by Sr. scientists in the lab with them. Now they are on their own. reduction of the myriad of other agency requirements like OMB that essentially create incredible hurtles that require the agencies to expend their resources on internal bureaucracy instead of doing the work of public health. Greater understanding and support of CDC leadership for ALL agencies that make-up CDC. Eliminate the Atlanta centric thinking of CDC leadership and operations to greater recognize and support CDC components that are not located in Atlanta or the state of Georgia. There is a overwhelming trend at CDC to make the laboratories conform to one size fits all protocols and proceedures and software packages. I am retired now, but the mandated systems that are being forced upon my former lab were unworkable and irrelevent to the actual laboratory mission. Mandates from HHS and the Director are interpreted by supervisory staff in a multiple ways, leaving the branch with 5 to 6 different interpretations of what we are being told to do. This results in bench level laboratory personel reaching the obvious conclusion that the supervisory chain is hopelessly inept, confused or incompatent. We have spent so much time writing and re-writing documents due to "wishy washy" and contradictory directions, that our moral has literally hit the toilet. Cut the bureaucracy, and stay focused on the mission of public health. Empowering senior and other level scientists with more influence on management policy and decisions; management and leadership structure and bias are too hierarchical and industry like. Survey scientists on how to recruit and retain scientific talent. I would recommend improving timely and accurate assistance with administrative tasks when coming on board at CDC. There is a huge communication gap between HR and security in Atlanta and other CDC sites. The process is extremely disorganized and dysfunctional. Lots of time was wasted (repeatedly emailing, calling, etc.) when coming on board which hinders the scientific work CDC hired me to do. On the Division and Branch level scientific work is completed with upmost integrity and diligence. 3 By looking at all the moving pieces that influence the mission and scientific work of the CDC.