Participating in the 2019 meeting of the independent particulate review panel was a unique experience for me and my colleagues at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). It was more than just a routine technical advisory committee meeting; it was a platform where scientists could utilize their expertise to shape policies based on the best available science, ultimately aimed at improving people’s lives. The need for external scientific advice is evident, as it serves as a form of peer review for the federal government’s work and ensures accountability to the public.
Over the past month, I have had the opportunity to engage with scientists, including current and former federal employees, as well as partner organizations of UCS, to gain insights into the state of federal science advice infrastructure and the scientific community at large. Through these conversations and contributions to UCS’ Independent Science Committee hub, I am filled with optimism and determination. A growing movement is underway, and UCS is committed to supporting it.
Here are some key takeaways from our discussions:
1. The Increasing Need for Science Advice
It is crucial for decision-makers to have access to the best available scientific evidence, especially in a time when misinformation is rampant. However, as science agencies and research programs face budget cuts, gaps are emerging in federally-managed scientific endeavors, including external advisory committees. Some committees are facing termination, with meetings being canceled and recommendations disregarded. A recent UCS report revealed that the Trump administration disbanded 27% of science committees in its first six months, jeopardizing oversight of scientific processes and regulatory actions. By dismantling external advisory bodies, the administration is eroding a crucial layer of accountability.
Notable examples include the dissolution of the Department of Interior’s Advisory Council for Climate Adaptation Science and NOAA’s Climate Services Advisory Committee, both essential for guiding climate adaptation efforts. Additionally, the termination of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee and the halting of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Technical Advisory Committee have deprived agencies of critical scientific guidance.
As federal science committees face closures, the independent convening of committees emerges as a viable strategy to uphold scientific integrity and transparency, in alignment with the Federal Advisory Committee Act’s principles.
UCS’ new resource hub provides tools and guidance on navigating the federal advisory committee database to monitor science advisory committees and identify instances of political interference.
2. Scientists Rising to the Occasion
Unlike in the past, scientists currently serving on committees are better prepared to respond to challenges, connected with their peers, and determined to carry on their crucial work. Communication channels like signal chats facilitate collaboration, while whistleblowers use social media platforms to expose unlawful activities. Scientists are leveraging their expertise and networks to ensure the continuity of scientific advisory work, despite obstacles.
UCS’ dedicated webpage showcases ongoing independent science initiatives, underscoring the resilience of the scientific community.
3. Advocacy and Transparency are Key
By speaking up and shedding light on critical issues, scientists play a pivotal role in holding decision-makers accountable. Engaging with lawmakers, organizations, and the media, scientists contribute to vital oversight mechanisms that safeguard the integrity of scientific processes. In the current climate, scientists serve as truth-tellers, offering expertise to inform government actions at all levels.
4. Advancing Diversity in Science
While transitions in advisory committees are routine, the targeted removal of scientists from underrepresented groups is concerning. Recent purges at NIH highlighted the dismissal of 38 out of 43 experts from marginalized communities, signaling a troubling trend. As scientists spearhead independent advisory efforts, there is an opportunity to champion diversity and inclusivity in science representation, in stark contrast to discriminatory practices.
UCS advocates for improved diversity on federal advisory committees and commits to upholding representation standards in independent science advisory endeavors.
5. Upholding the Integrity of Science
Amid challenges, scientists affirm the imperative of continuing scientific endeavors. The U.S. scientific community serves as a beacon of innovation and progress, critical for national security and global leadership. Independent science advisory mechanisms are vital for ensuring the integrity of government science and upholding scientific standards.
UCS is spearheading efforts to foster an alliance for independent science, offering resources and support for current and former committee members, federal employees, and the broader scientific community to engage in independent advisory initiatives. To learn more and contribute to this cause, visit here.
Genna Reed, formerly with UCS, has extensive experience in science policy and government engagement. She has played key roles in advancing science-based decision-making and promoting scientific integrity across federal agencies.
