Science advisory committees are crucial in ensuring that government policies impacting public health, the environment, and technology are informed by evidence rather than political agendas. Comprised of experts from various sectors, these committees influence decision-making through rigorous, transparent discussions, safeguarding policies from political or corporate influences.
Recently, the U.S. federal government has seen substantial changes to these committees following President Trump’s executive order, “Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy”. Notably, the National Science Foundation (NSF) eliminated 12 advisory committees on April 15, 2025. These committees covered key areas like biological sciences, environmental research, and more. Their absence could hinder the NSF’s ability to address emerging issues such as misinformation, biodiversity loss, and air quality, leaving research gaps unfilled.
Similarly, the Interior Department has dissolved six committees, including one focused on science quality and integrity. This change raises concerns about the oversight of scientific procedures at US Geological Survey labs, potentially affecting the assurance of clean water due to less scrutiny on testing methods for contaminants.
On April 28, 2025, the Trump administration also dismissed all 400 experts involved in the Sixth National Climate Assessment, a requirement under the Global Change Research Act. This decision could impede local and regional governments’ access to climate projections, complicating their ability to prepare for extreme weather conditions that threaten infrastructure, agriculture, and public safety.
Science advisory committees significantly contribute to the technical expertise required by regulatory agencies such as the FDA, CDC, EPA, and CMS. These agencies rely on committees to interpret regulatory authority and navigate complex decisions amid various pressures. For instance, the EPA’s decision to tighten air quality standards, influenced by committee recommendations, has saved lives and improved air quality in historically polluted areas like Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The role of these committees, sometimes mandated by law, is vital for high-profile decisions, such as drug approvals or infectious disease management. Consistent referral to committees enhances public trust in agency decisions. The disbanding of these committees, justified by claims of reducing bureaucracy, lacks evidence of financial savings and overlooks potential costs related to environmental and public health impacts.
To protect the integrity of policy-making, it is essential to reinforce the role of independent science advisory committees, shielding them from political influence and ensuring diverse representation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act outlines safeguards enforced by various governmental bodies to maintain these protections.
Disregarding scientific advisors risks misinformation and harm to citizens. Upholding evidence-based policy is crucial for governance and progress. Science must remain integral to shaping policies that safeguard public health, the environment, and technological advancement, rather than being sidelined under the guise of reducing bureaucratic inefficiencies.
Original Story at thebulletin.org