Some Americans were stunned — and angry — when they heard Dr. Anthony Fauci tell Congress that the six-foot social distancing rule that made life so difficult during the pandemic “sort of just appeared” and wasn’t supported by any specific scientific studies.

And many amateur chefs were chagrined with reports that the Department of Energy was proposing rules that could have meant the end of their treasured gas stoves.

In both cases, government agencies imposing these policies say the experts know best. Opponents counter that, as COVID reminded America, the experts aren’t always right. And while scientific and technical expertise is important, policy should be set by elected representatives of the people, not self-declared elites.

This battle has gone public thanks to an administration initiative known as “Trump proofing” — changing bureaucratic rules to try to keep an incoming Republican president from reversing policies put in place by his Democratic predecessor.

Biden administration officials are invoking the premise of “scientific integrity” as they impose bureaucratic roadblocks to oversight by elected officials and their appointees. The White House tapped longtime National Institutes of Health administrator Dr. Lyric Jorgenson as its designated scientific integrity officer.

Politico reports that the White House has directed the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration “to strengthen their scientific integrity plans, both to ensure that research is rigorous, bias-free, transparent and reliable — and that nonpartisan civil servants are making the research decisions.”

However, advocates for democratic oversight argue that “nonpartisanship” is not a realistic goal. As President Barack Obama famously said, “Elections have consequences.”

The Council to Modernize Governance sees Biden’s “scientific integrity” policy as a strategy to keep Democratic policies in place long after the administration is gone.

That includes new Environmental Protection Agency rules that say “political appointees” can’t interfere or “inappropriately influence” the way that scientific activities or information are put together, proposed, conducted, reviewed, or evaluated. The Department of Health and Human Services adopted similar rules.

The EPA later announced that “scientific integrity” protections were in its new contract with unionized workers. This allowed EPA workers to complain if bosses or co-workers attempted what it called “inappropriate interference” into scientific work. It also gave the union power to negotiate any changes to the EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy definitions.

Executive Director Curtis Schube of the Council to Modernize Governance said the Biden administration has made no secret of its goals. “(They) have openly acknowledged their plans to ‘resist’ a second Trump administration,” he said.

Taylor Millard writes about politics and public policy for InsideSources.com.