Golden Fleece Award

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Rep. French Hill (AR-02) named the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as the latest recipient of his Golden Fleece Award for their slow and incomplete implementation of procedures to secure their data and scientific research.

Rep. Hill said, “Years ago, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) was tasked with developing and implementing an agency-wide, minimum quality management system to protect research coming out of their laboratories after three breaches were investigated and discovered. This is completely unacceptable. While the reasons for these breaches vary, the same holds true – federal American research should not be compromised. USGS controls do not meet minimum federal standards and slow rollout risks the agency-wide standards not being completely adhered to or implemented. Taxpayers should be certain that their contributions are being spent well, and policymakers and others who rely on USGS data should trust the source of the research and information being presented."

In a letter to USGS Director Dave Applegate, Rep. Hill writes:

Dear Director Applegate:

I write today to inform you that the United States Geological Survey (USGS) is the most recent recipient of my Golden Fleece Award. I am awarding this to USGS for your agency’s slow and incomplete implementation of a quality management system to address potential risks to data and breaches of scientific integrity.

USGS is a federal earth science agency that is responsible for delivering actionable science to U.S. decision makers; monitoring, analyzing, and predicting earth-system interactions; and providing science about natural hazards, energy and mineral resources, environmental health, and water resources. USGS manages over 490 individual laboratories across the country that conduct routine or repeated analyses, support innovation or scientific discovery, and collect field measurements or observations.

Since 2011, USGS has completed 24 investigations into alleged breaches of scientific integrity and concluded that there was a loss of scientific integrity in three of seven investigations into USGS laboratory activities. After these three incidents of misconduct were identified, USGS began developing and implementing an overarching, baseline quality management system (QMS) to address potential risks to data and breaches of scientific integrity in the future. In July 2024, a Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General audit of the QMS found that “USGS lacks sufficient internal controls in laboratories to identify vulnerabilities and prevent losses associated with breaches of scientific integrity and misconduct”.

In 2018, the USGS set an original target for full implementation of the QMS by 2023, before pushing that timeline back to the end of 2025 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the audit identified that “less than 20 percent of USGS laboratories had fully implemented the QMS… [and that] [o]f the eight laboratories that USGS deemed to have fully implemented the Bureau QMS, … none, in fact, had implemented basic internal controls… and only one laboratory required standard operating procedures.”

The Government Accountability Office provides a framework for designing, implementing, and operating an effective internal control system, known as the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (aka the “Green Book”). A QMS should implement the standards detailed in the Green Book and provide a structure that ensures entities adhere to standards or technical specifications, although there is an acknowledgement that laboratories should have flexibility and discretion in implementing a QMS. The Office of Science Quality and Integrity is primarily responsible for the Bureau QMS, maintaining the USGS QMS policy, training staff on implementation, and providing oversight and assurance over the QMS policy, implementation, and corrective actions from quality-related problems and concerns. The USGS QMS Manual establishes all requirements needed to comply with Federal standards. Yet, despite the existence of all this guidance and dedicated personnel, USGS does not require holistic risk assessments of the factors that have led to past misconduct and the lack of controls has caused USGS to be unaware of what information systems are being used and that these risks even exist.

Interior’s OIG reports that USGS lacks sufficient internal controls to ensure scientific integrity in its laboratories and that USGS has yet to implement the Bureau QMS in a timely manner or with an effective oversight structure that incorporates the Green Book and basic internal controls in the Bureau QMS, such as supervisory review, standard operating procedures, risk assessments, and information system controls. Without these in place, USGS cannot ensure the reliability of laboratory results and identify vulnerabilities to deter losses. Additionally, only one mission area has shown significant progress in implementing their QMS, and those laboratories have fully implemented a QMS which exceeds the USGS QMS standards.

The report also found that there is a lack of clarity regarding relevant roles for QMS staff and an increased risk of potential conflicts of interest. Since the QMS Manual does not require USGS laboratories to include factors that have led to past instances of misconduct, USGS cannot use their system to track vulnerabilities related to data systems, ensure the agency has sufficient resources, and manage workload capacity. Data – which is generated by, transferred from, and stored in USGS laboratories – remains vulnerable to loss, manipulation, or errors due to these insufficient controls and flawed oversight of the information systems used in USGS laboratories.

With a budget of almost $1.8 billion, maintaining USGS’s scientific integrity is paramount to the agency’s success and ability to deliver trusted research. Not only have controls not been properly put in place, but your agency may have overestimated its current compliance, which further erodes trust in the agency. Your agency has slowly and haphazardly begun implementation of a quality management system that does not incorporate full federal guidance and assess the causes that led to the previous misconduct that required USGS to undertake this operation. If your agency cannot guarantee the quality of its research, it will become ineffective, impractical, and dangerous. I urge you to seriously consider and accept the recommendations of the Interior OIG.

I am committed to ensuring effective fiscal practices at our Nation’s federal agencies. Should you require any additional authority from Congress to address these concerns, I urge you to notify us as soon as possible. I would also welcome any technical assistance you could provide to Congress to correct statutory issues that may have contributed to this problem. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to working with you to address this important issue.