Federal Science Advisory Committees Are Being Defunded and Dismantled. Here’s a Toolkit to Help Independent Scientists Step Up
The Equation Read More
Federal science advisory committees (SACs) are a critical mechanism for informing U.S. public policy and regulations. When structured effectively, as governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, SACs provide impartial, evidence-based recommendations to support decision makers in the federal government responsible for public safety and wellbeing. As a result of a Trump administration executive order that requires “a reduction in the elements of the Federal bureaucracy that the President has determined are unnecessary,” scientific advisory committees are being dismantled across federal agencies. Eliminating science advisory committees means that public policies and regulations may be ineffective or even harmful.
Science advisory committees are like a lighthouse guiding decision makers through the darkness. In times of uncertainty, where misinformation and competing interests create fog around pressing environmental health issues, science advisory committees illuminate the best available scientific evidence. Their transparency, accountability, and nonpartisan expertise helps to ensure that the light they cast is neither dimmed by political ideology nor redirected by financial motives.
Consider the example of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC), which evaluates the science that informs air quality standards for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). CASAC’s independent expertise has played a crucial role in ensuring that air pollution regulations are based on the best available science. More protective standards have prevented thousands of premature deaths annually, particularly among vulnerable populations. My hometown of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has seen measurable air quality improvements, leading to fewer emergency department visits for asthma and heart disease thanks to tough federal standards. Meeting the EPA’s standards in Pittsburgh has been associated with hundreds of millions of dollars of improved health outcomes and economic output from regulated industries.
Many science advisory committees were dismantled during the first Trump administration, including the EPA’s CASAC. In the second administration, we are again seeing a significant change in the landscape of science advisory committees as federal agencies follow Trump’s executive order. The National Science Foundation has eliminated 12 committees that provided critical advice about how to ensure scientific research addresses pressing societal needs–such as feeding the world sustainably, building community resilience to climate change, or understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on workers. The Department of Interior eliminated six committees, including one charged in part with identifying mechanisms that oversee the quality of science within the US Geological Survey labs. Without this committee, there will be less scrutiny of the quality of water testing procedures for contamination of lakes, rivers, wetlands, and aquifers.
The value of science advisory committees comes first from a sturdy foundation of independence—the lighthouse built on rock rather than sand—safeguarding scientific integrity from inappropriate political and corporate influence. To ensure independence of the committee, members are selected based on relevant expertise (rather than political or corporate affiliation) and they must publicly disclose conflicts of interest.
The transparency of science advisory committees serves as the lighthouse beacon itself, illuminating the findings and processes for all to see. To ensure transparency, meetings and reports are made accessible to the public. When the first Trump administration dismantled the CASAC, scientists self-organized as the Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel and shared their deliberations and comments about air quality standards as a matter of public record.
Committee diversity, like the light’s multi-directional reach, ensures that perspectives from all corners are represented, preventing blind spots in policy recommendations. Committees that are heavily composed of industry-affiliated experts may prioritize economic interests over environmental or public health concerns. For instance, the Anti-Hunger Coalition successfully sued to be included in a federal advisory committee on cost control in government to ensure the interests of federal food assistance beneficiaries were addressed. To ensure diversity, the Federal Advisory Committee Act requires science advisory committees to be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed.”
Regular evaluations of scientific advisory committees act as the lighthouse keeper, maintaining alignment with the objectives and scope defined upfront. The evaluations also assess whether their objectives have been met effectively with evidence-based, actionable recommendations on emerging scientific and societal challenges. Federal agencies themselves (sometimes with the help of other review bodies) are primarily responsible for evaluations as detailed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
Despite the current Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle federal science advisory committees, scientists and their organizations can still collaborate to form independent committees. Aside from the public benefits that come from informing decision makers with recommendations based on the best available science, independent science advisory committees also serve to safeguard against distortions of research in federal policymaking. They force federal decisionmakers to explain why if they are ignoring the conclusions of groups of scientific experts.
Our new toolkit provides some tips for scientists interested in continuing the work of dismantled science advisory committees. The toolkit outlines hallmarks and key elements of science advisory committees and offers several questions to help guide scientists deciding whether and how to form an independent committee. For instance: Did the dismantled committee have a clear charter? Is there a clear benefit, interest and capacity in forming an independent committee? Is there access to someone knowledgeable about the Federal Advisory Committee Act? What product will be generated and how will communications be shared? These are some of the considerations scientists with different types of expertise and experiences should weigh to see how they can best put their expertise to work.
After more than 100 days of the second Trump administration, the ongoing attacks on science and obliteration of scientific infrastructure clearly signal the need for science advisory committees to be stronger than ever, especially if they are being eliminated from the federal government. Like a sturdy lighthouse standing against turbulent waves, independent science advisory committees must remain resilient in the face of pressures that seek to undermine scientific integrity.
Although federal resources for science advisory committees are being eliminated, scientists can ensure their expertise informs policies that benefit the public good by following the FACA’s guidelines in their own independent committees and implementing best practices for independence, transparency, diversity, and evaluation.
Whether working on environmental issues, medical research, or technological ethics, the scientific community must proactively ensure that expert knowledge transparently translates into actionable, evidence-based decision-making.
If you’re a scientist interested in running or supporting an independent science advisory committees, let’s collaborate. Together, we can strengthen science’s role in shaping a healthier, safer, and more informed world.