One of the imperfectly realized goals of science is to reward people fairly for their excellence and defining our future through models of shared governance as we prioritize limited resources.
Research shows that reality favors the ideas of people at the best schools who are white and male. It is not enough to be the best, you also have to overcome bias and have a certain amount of luck – There are issues…but we are trying to be self aware.
In our idealized world, committees of competitively sele cted or elected scientists serve on committees that provide the government with insights on what are the most important science questions to be answered, what are the tools we need, and what are the issues being faced by our profession.
These committees take roughly three different forms.
There are our professional societies, which can and do directly address politicians and can often be found calling on their membership to sign letters and make phone calls. As long as scientists exist to pay dues, these organizations, like the American Astronomical Society and the American Geophysical Union, will continue to exist.
Congress also recognizes that it sometimes needs very specific advice, and this is where the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine come in. Congressionally created with the mission to “provide independent, trustworthy advice and facilitate solutions to complex challenges by mobilizing expertise, practice, and knowledge in science, engineering, and medicine.” Committee members are nominated, vetted, and competitively selected, and they work, often as representatives who collect input from the community, to review existing programs, and recommend future priorities. Recently, we’ve seen the “NASA at a Crossroads” report come out reviewing NASA’s status and ability to maintain workforce, infrastructure, and technology preeminence in the coming decades.
In addition to our professional organizations and the National Academies, various government agencies have their own committees. At NASA, these took the form of Assessment groups that provided NASA with community feedback on everything from funding needs to research priorities. All of these committees were temporarily closed down in response to Executive Orders, and it is being verified that their websites and actions conform to all current orders from the Executive Branch.
Of the nine different assessment groups, only three are back online, and the remainder remain under review. Listed as under review is the Lunar Exploration Assessment Group, or LEAG, which normally would be in close communications with NASA about everything from the status of the VIPER rover to the science plans for the Artemis program. While it is frustrating to feel left out of lunar discussions, more concerning is the President’s budget request, which includes massive funding cuts to NASA science and the elimination of centers and missions. If Congress does anything like what the president wants, and these assessment groups aren’t in place, there will be little to no community input on what, if anything, is allowed to continue. This means the people who really understand the science may not be the people setting the science goals.
And it’s not just NASA.
Per their website, “On April 15, 2025, NSF announced that it is disestablishing certain non-statutory federal advisory committees effective immediately in alignment with the President’s executive order, Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy.”
As they explain, “The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) relies on the judgment of external experts to provide advice and recommendations on its programs. NSF’s advisory committees advise the agency on issues such as: How to maintain high standards of program support for research, education and infrastructure. Policy deliberations, program development and management. Identifying disciplinary needs and areas of opportunity. Promoting openness to the research and education community served by the agency.”
Put another way, committees that previously allowed the staff at NASA and NSF to make more informed decisions have been disestabled or put on hiatus, with NSF implying that making informed decisions is just excess bureaucracy.
If scientists who are trying our best to be fair and maximize what science can accomplish are told their voices are no longer needed or must be edited for unwanted ideas – ideas like trying to fix our known biases – then we are no longer following the path toward truth. We are instead following dictates along the path of whim, and, it appears, those dictates are rich in misinformation.