Eliminating US science advisory committees will harm the public and open the door to special interests

In democratic societies, science advisory committees ensure that policy decisions impacting public health, the environment, and technological innovation are rooted in evidence rather than political ideology. These committees—composed of scientists and other experts from academia, state and local government, industry, and nonprofits—play a pivotal role in shaping evidence-based policymaking via rigorous and transparent, fact-based deliberations. Without these committees, the policies developed by leaders in the federal government may be ineffective or even harmful and could be vulnerable to political or corporate interference.

In recent weeks, the landscape of science advisory committees in the United States federal government has changed significantly as agencies follow an executive order from President Trump titled “Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy.” For instance, on April 15, 2025, the National Science Foundation (NSF) eliminated 12 committees advising on many important areas, including biological sciences; geosciences; cyberinfrastructure; environmental research and education; and social, behavioral, and economic sciences. Without these committees, the NSF will struggle to identify and provide funding to research a variety of emerging challenges, including the spread of misinformation/disinformation, widespread biodiversity loss, and the impact of aerosols on air quality and climate conditions. Critical research gaps will remain unaddressed, leaving the public less equipped to confront new threats as the NSF’s priorities drift away from pressing societal needs.

The Interior Department has eliminated six committees in 2025, including the committee for science quality and integrity, which was charged in part with identifying effective mechanisms to provide oversight of science quality within the US Geological Survey labs. Without this committee, the public is less assured of clean water because the scientific quality of testing procedures for hundreds of contaminants in our surface and groundwaters will face less scrutiny.

And on April 28, 2025, the Trump administration dismissed all 400 experts working on the Sixth National Climate Assessment, which is mandated by the Global Change Research Act.Without the assessment, local and regional governments will struggle to access climate projections tailored to their geography and economy, making it harder for them to plan for extreme weather that can destroy roads, bridges, and homes, damage agriculture, and put lives at risk. Going forward, dismissing the vetted experts already working on the National Climate Assessment raises questions about whether the Trump administration will fill the void with junk science.

Science advisory committees play a unique role in providing technical expertise for science-based regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). These agencies interpret regulatory authority and make time-sensitive decisions with imperfect information, facing pressure from multiple special interests. Their decisions on air quality standards, drug safety, healthcare coverage, and vaccines have widespread effects on the health and wellbeing of large populations. Recommendations by the clean air science advisory committee, for instance, influenced the EPA’s decision to tighten national ambient air quality standards for small particulates, preventing thousands of premature deaths annually, particularly among vulnerable populations. Areas with historically high pollution, like Pittsburgh, Penn., saw measurable air quality improvements, leading to fewer hospitalizations for asthma and heart disease.

The convening of science advisory committees is required by law in some circumstances (e.g., by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) but is often left to the agency leaders’ discretion. The usefulness of committees to an agency depends in part on the agency’s consistency in referring questions to committee, especially for high-profile decisions such as the accelerated approval of a drug for treating Alzheimer’s disease or preventing the spread of an infectious disease such as COVID-19. Public-facing guidance from the agency or legislation from Congress providing criteria about consistent referral practices is key to building public trust in agency decisions.

Independent science advisory committees act as a safeguard against ideological bias by ensuring transparency, accountability, and nonpartisan expertise in decision making. When these committees are disbanded or weakened, the door opens for policies to be influenced by misinformation or special interests. The consequences include weakened environmental regulations, compromised public health response strategies, and prioritization of short-term economic interests over longer-term resource management for the greater public good. The committees are being eliminated on the claim of cutting federal red tape and expenses, but no evidence has been provided to account for what savings will be gained—or what additional costs will arise from increased environmental contamination, unsustainable resource usage, and associated negative public health impacts.

To counteract suppression of expertise, government and civil society need to strengthen the role of independent science advisory committees in policy-making processes. This means enforcing safeguards that protect them from political influence and ensuring diverse and balanced representation across scientific disciplines, education, and demographic groups. As specified in the Federal Advisory Committee Act, these safeguards are enforced by the Office of Science and Techology Policy, the federal agencies convening the committees, and congressional oversight committees.

A nation that disregards its scientific advisors is a nation that risks stagnation, misinformation, and harm to its citizens. Preserving evidence-based policy is not a matter of perpetuating administrative red tape—it is a commitment to integrity and fact-based governance. Science should play an essential role in informing policies that protect public health, the environment, and technological progress. Science cannot fulfill this role if science advisory committees are dismantled on the specious pretense of cutting bureaucracy and government waste.