The leadership of U.S. scientific organizations is facing pressure to advocate for the vital need for science funding and to underscore the detrimental impacts of proposed budget cuts. However, insights from a recent National Academies event suggest a lack of urgency in addressing these issues.
Changing Dynamics
As a leading scientific body that regularly conducts analyses for the federal government, the National Academies is positioned to have its input taken seriously by lawmakers. Given that current and future science policy is shaped by legislative decisions, a gathering titled the State of the Science would appear to be an appropriate platform for such discussions.
However, Marcia McNutt, the president of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), did not fully capitalize on this opportunity during her speech. While she made veiled references to pressing issues, stating, “We are embarking on a radical new experiment in what conditions promote science leadership, with the US being the treatment group, and China as the control,” she also pointed out that “uncertainties over the science budgets for next year, coupled with cancellations of billions of dollars of already hard-won research grants, is causing an exodus of researchers.”
McNutt’s primary emphasis was on examining funding and policy trends leading up to the second Trump administration, suggesting this retrospective was necessary for a broader understanding beyond the upcoming years. However, this perspective overlooks the significant transformations that U.S. science could undergo if the Trump administration implements its proposed policies; established trends from the past two decades may become irrelevant.
Additionally, McNutt’s remarks showed a notable avoidance of the Trump administration’s key priorities. While she referenced faculty surveys indicating that researchers spend approximately 40% of their time navigating regulatory requirements, she described the administration’s anti-regulatory approach as potentially beneficial (calling it “an opportunity to help”). Yet, she failed to acknowledge that many of the eliminated regulations could signify a departure from science-based policy-making.
