On June 23, 2025, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) announced that it issued agency guidance for implementing Gold Standard Science in the conduct and management of scientific activities. As reported in our June 5, 2025, memorandum, on May 27, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) on “Restoring Gold Standard Science.” The EO restores the scientific integrity policies of the first Trump Administration and “ensures that agencies practice data transparency, acknowledge relevant scientific uncertainties, are transparent about the assumptions and likelihood of scenarios used, approach scientific findings objectively, and communicate scientific data accurately.” The agency guidance provides guidance to federal departments and agencies (agencies) on implementing Gold Standard Science “in the conduct and management of all aspects of their scientific activities, from research design to public communication.” The guidance defines the nine key tenets that define Gold Standard Science and describes agency responsibilities for each: 

• Reproducible: 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. Replicability is the ability to perform the same experiment or study using the same methods and conditions to achieve the same result. To advance reproducible and replicable science, agencies shall prioritize disciplined scientific methods and experimental design. Agencies should establish incentives, such as grant programs, awards, or recognition, to encourage researchers and institutions to prioritize both reproducibility and replicability, reinforcing their complementary roles in open science. 
• Transparent: Transparency in science entails the open, accessible, and comprehensive sharing of all components of the research process — methodologies, data, analytical tools, and findings — to enable stringent scrutiny, validation, and reuse by the scientific community and the public. Agencies shall prioritize transparency in scientific research 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. 
• Communicative of Error and Uncertainty: Communicating error and uncertainty in science entails the clear, precise, and accurate disclosure of limitations, variability, and potential sources of error or limitations in measurements or research findings, enabling other scientists to critically assess, replicate, and extend the work. Research reporting should include quantitative measures of uncertainties — such as confidence intervals, error margins, or sensitivity analyses — alongside clear explanations of methodological constraints and assumptions and the intended scope of the research, including what the scientific findings do and do not establish. To prevent overstatement of results, agencies should promote cautious, evidence-based language in reports, publications, and public communications. 
• 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. Agencies shall prioritize collaborative and interdisciplinary approaches in scientific research to accelerate discovery and innovation. Further, agencies shall foster partnerships across agencies, disciplines, institutions, and sectors by supporting joint funding opportunities, interdisciplinary research centers, user facilities, and accessible data-sharing platforms. 
• Skeptical of Its Findings and Assumptions: Maintaining constructive skepticism of findings and assumptions in science refers to the critical and open-minded evaluation of research findings, methodologies, and underlying assumptions to ensure their validity, robustness, and reliability. Agencies shall foster a culture of constructive skepticism in scientific research through policies and programs that emphasize critical evaluation, transparency, and objectivity. Agencies shall also 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. 
• Structured for Falsifiability of Hypotheses: Structuring science for falsifiability of hypotheses entails designing research studies and experiments to enable hypotheses to be tested carefully and potentially disproven through empirical evidence. Agencies shall prioritize scientific research that is structured for falsifiability of hypotheses. Research programs should be designed to allow for the rejection of hypotheses based on empirical evidence, prioritizing studies that advance knowledge through thorough testing. Agencies should promote practices that enhance falsifiability, such as pre-registration of study protocols, use of appropriate control groups, and transparent reporting of null or negative results in publications and data repositories. 
• Subject to Unbiased Peer Review: Subjecting science to unbiased peer review refers to the impartial and independent evaluation, by qualified experts, of both research proposals and manuscripts that report results of federally supported research, to ensure validity, quality, and credibility prior to funding, publication, or dissemination. Agencies shall prioritize unbiased peer review to advance sound science in the review, selection, and awarding of federal grants and contracts, including competitive and discretionary awards. Agencies should ensure appropriate reviewer selection, prioritizing expertise, independence, and viewpoint diversity, and adopt double-blind review where appropriate, with clear disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. 
• Accepting of Negative Results as Positive Outcomes: Accepting negative results as positive outcomes in science refers to recognizing and valuing — as meaningful contributions to knowledge generation — null or unexpected findings that fail to support a hypothesis. Agencies shall recognize negative or null results as valuable contributions to scientific knowledge, fostering integrity and innovation. Agencies should promote standards that encourage the submission and dissemination of negative findings, such as establishing dedicated journal sections or specialized repositories for null results, integrating these outcomes into broader research narratives. 
• Without 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. Agencies shall prioritize conducting and managing scientific research free from conflicts of interest to advance unbiased science. Agencies shall require disclosure of all relevant conflicts of interest by researchers, reviewers, and agency officials involved in the funding or performance of federal research. Agencies should mandate the use of independent oversight approaches and enforce strict conflict-of-interest policies. 

The guidance states that to align with the EO, federal agencies “shall implement Gold Standard Science tenets in all agency-managed scientific activities, including both intramural and extramural research, from the selection phase throughout closeout.” The guidance suggests that to enhance efficiency, agencies should explore the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and other advanced technologies for implementing Gold Standard Science, such as automated tools for validating reproducible protocols, standardizing transparent data reporting, quantifying uncertainty, facilitating interdisciplinary collaboration, detecting biases in peer and merit review, and managing conflict-of-interest disclosures. Agencies must report the actions that they are taking to implement the guidance by August 22, 2025. Future reports will be due to OSTP by September 1 of each year beginning in 2026.