When UCS colleagues and I participated in the 2019 convening of the independent particulate review panel, there was something special in the air. It didn’t just feel like a dry, technical advisory committee meeting. Scientists who believe in the importance of policies based on the best available science and designed to improve peoples’ lives were able to actually do that work and use their expertise. There’s a reason the federal government needs advice from outside of the federal government. It’s both a means of peer review of its own work and one of the ways that an institution as large as the federal government can be held accountable to the public it serves.

I had the chance to spend the past month with UCS talking to scientists, including current and former federal government employees and staff at UCS’ partner organizations, to better understand what has been happening to the federal science advice infrastructure and the scientific community at large. After many conversations and helping to compile new resources for UCS’ Independent Science Committee hub, I’m filled with hope and resolve. There is a powerful movement that’s growing and UCS is here to support it.

Here are some major takeaways:

1. Science advice is needed more now than ever before

It’s essential that decision-makers can work with the best available science evidence. Especially in a corrupted information environment, the continuity of scientific work is a light in the darkness. As science agencies and entire research programs are cut, however, gaps are growing in science stewarded by the federal government, and that goes for outside advice too. Some committees of external experts are being targeted for termination, or their meetings are being cancelled and their recommendations ignored. According to a recent UCS report, in the Trump administration’s first six months, it disbanded 27 percent (51 out of 188) science committees across the government. These are committees that provide vital oversight of scientific processes, scientific underpinning of regulatory actions, and more. But they are at risk because the scientific advice they provide advice touches on topics that are being directly targeted by the Trump administration. By removing external advisors that conduct in-depth reviews of government processes, programs, and research to ensure integrity and transparency, the administration is stripping away a vital layer of accountability.

Ther pattern is clear. For example, the Department of Interior’s Advisory Council for Climate Adaptation Science and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Services Advisory Committee no longer exist. These bodies should be providing advice to federal staff on how to ensure effective delivery of science information and tools to federal, state, local and Tribal decision-makers to help them best adapt to a changing climate. This loss of advice comes at a time when intergovernmental coordination is essential for ensuring infrastructure investments made at every level of government are resilient to the impacts of climate change.

While not technically listed as a scientific committee, the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (terminated as of September 30th) provides recommendations to multiple federal agencies on how best to protect the nation’s environment, health, and agricultural productivity from invasive species. This decades-old committee, also stalled during the first Trump administration, is inactive at a time when USDA capacity is greatly diminished and the invasive screwworm from Mexico threatens already-strained American ranchers and their cattle.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Technical Advisory Committee was abruptly halted in February, despite the importance of information on job losses and the nation’s economic picture.

As the federal government shutters science committees, independent convening of committees is a powerful strategy to maintain a productive avenue for science advice, while fulfilling the foundational principles of the Federal Advisory Committee Act: integrity, balance, and transparency.

UCS’ new clearinghouse offers guidance and resources for using the federal advisory committee government database to track science advisory committees and understand how political interference might threaten the value they provide.

2. Scientists are meeting the moment

In contrast to when I began talking to scientists who had been fired from their science advisory committees during Trump’s first term, committee members today are more prepared to respond, connected with one another, and ready to continue the work they were hired to do. Scientists on previously-targeted committees knew to expect a termination notice this year. Some are using signal chats to stay in touch. Some are going beyond their own committee to organize across all science committees at a given agency. Scientists are exercising their right to free speech on social media channels and substacks and blowing the whistle on activity that is not legal or violates the public interest. These scientists are acting courageously because the risks of staying silent and watching the collapse of vital science infrastructure outweigh those associated with potential retaliation or retribution.

UCS’ new web page highlights independent science initiatives that are underway, and the list will be updated as it continues to grow.

3. Speaking up and shining a light on issues matters

As scientists raise their hand to speak—anonymously or using their name—to discuss the value of science committees, federal research programs, and datasets, they are doing a service by shining a light on what’s happening in real time. By communicating with members of Congress, organizations, and journalists, scientists can help them conduct vital oversight over processes that might otherwise happen out of the public eye. In this moment, scientists are a powerful constituency of truth tellers, with expertise on how science should be conducted, with integrity and commitment to the public good, and how to provide data and research that can inform decisions at all levels of government.

4. Progress made on diversifying science and science institutions must continue

Shifting composition of members on advisory committees and in key science posts during a Presidential transition is normal. What’s extremely abnormal and dangerous, however, is targeting scientists of color and women to be removed from committees. This happened earlier this year at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), across the Boards of Scientific Counselors that oversee scientists and research portfolios at NIH laboratories. Thirty-eight of 43 experts fired in a purge ordered by the then-acting NIH director were female, Black or Hispanic.

As scientists operate their committees independently and work to reimagine science advice outside of the federal government, there is an opportunity to show what representation should look like when you are actually interested in external input that’s representative of the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity that truly makes up our nation. UCS has pushed for improvements to the representation of scientists of color and women scientists on federal advisory committees and will work to ensure that independent science advisory committees stand in contrast to the administration’s willful attack on diversity.

5. Science must and will go on

Scientists serving as external advisors, within the federal government and all across society are in agreement: science must go on. Not only is the U.S. scientific engine vital for economic, environmental, energy and health security, but it’s a model the international community looks to. No country can have a thriving scientific enterprise unless there’s independent, external science advice and mechanisms to hold government science accountable to uphold scientific integrity.

UCS is working to build a powerful alliance for independent science. Its new web resource hosts information and resources for current and former advisory committee members, current and former federal employees, and the larger scientific community to get involved in running an independent science advisory committee. To learn more and support the effort, join here.

Genna Reed is a former Director of Policy Analysis for the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS. She most recently served as the Engagement Manager with the Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization (IWG) at the U.S. Department of Energy. Prior to this role, she spent two years in the Office of Policy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

From The Equation via this RSS feed