The headquarters of the National Academy of Sciences in Washington DC.Credit: Radharc Images/Alamy
One of the most influential scientific societies in the United States is in turmoil. Budget cuts by the administration of President Donald Trump have forced the US National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) into a wholesale reorganization. At the same time, many members are arguing that academy leaders have gone too far to accommodate the Trump administration — and done too little to defend science.
Since Trump took office in January, his administration has cancelled or suspended tens of millions of dollars’ worth of contracts for advisory reports crafted by academy members and other scientists for sponsors including the US government. Meanwhile, the pipeline of contracts for future reports has largely dried up. These realities have already pushed the academies’ operations and publication branch, the National Research Council (NRC), to pare 50–100 people from its roughly 1,200-person staff, and hundreds more are expected to be laid off.
“We are a target”: scientific society under pressure after Trump DEI crackdown
NASEM members who spoke to Nature acknowledge the challenges facing leaders trying to preserve the institution, but some have accused NASEM leadership of a lack of transparency, silence in the face of historic attacks on science and even censorship. In the latest example, critics cite internal guidance issued in March suggesting that the NRC will no longer permit research ***essments “on topics ***ly related” to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility — principles disfavoured by the Trump administration.
The upheaval has spurred talk of a no-confidence vote in Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences and chair of the NRC. “What’s the point in preserving the NRC as an organization if it loses its scientific integrity?” asks Charles Manski, an academy member and an economist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.
In an interview with Nature, McNutt expressed sympathy with her critics, but said she is confronted with a “Faustian dilemma” in which challenging the administration, as many members advocate, could bring about the end of the organization, which depends on federal contracts for its very existence. “What we are hoping is that sanity will prevail again some time in the future,” she says. “If it does, I’m not sure I want to be in the position where I have put the academy out of business.”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Mission imperiled
Every year, the NRC releases about 200 reports on topics ranging from the best pavement materials to the future of high-energy particle physics. These are authored by specialists including NASEM members, who are elected for their contributions to the sciences. US federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), commission many NRC studies, which policymakers regard as gold-standard advice. Last year, contracts with federal agencies supplied 59% of the NRC’s roughly $360 million budget.
Last month, the organization announced a plan to consolidate internal divisions and reduce the number of NRC advisory boards, which guide study projects. McNutt says the current expectation is a 15% reduction in budget and staff by the end of August and a 30% reduction by the end of the year.
Most academy members — as well as NRC staff members, who are in danger of being laid off — have been cut out of the process, says Elissa Newport, an academy member and neuroscientist at Georgetown University in Washington DC.
National Academy of Sciences president Marcia McNutt has drawn criticism from academy members for her response to the Trump administration’s attacks on science.Credit: Yichuan Cao/Sipa USA/Alamy Stock Photo
On 18 June, Newport sent an e-mail signed by more than a dozen academy members to McNutt and the NRC leadership, calling on them to consult with employees, board members and rank-and-file members about the reorganization. McNutt’s response — that leadership has consulted some members and does not have time to seek broader input — failed to satisfy. “They feel that the timeline requires an urgent process that must be kept confidential, and we strongly disagree with that,” Newport says.
Silenced science
On his first day in office, Trump banned federal programmes and contracts about diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA). Within a month, biomedical news outlet STAT reported that the academies were removing terms such as ‘health equity’ from reports to placate the administration.
On 7 March, NASEM acknowledged these concerns in internal guidance doblockents summarizing institutional policies. One controversial provision clarified that although foreign ***istance and climate change remained acceptable topics, despite being on the Trump team’s chopping block, anything ***ly related to DEIA would be prohibited. “It does not matter if the potential sponsor is federal or private,” the doblockent states.
Have Trump’s anti-DEI orders hit private funders? HHMI halts inclusive science programme
“That would be censorship, and that would be the NRC selling its soul,” Manski says. The academy’s critics argue that Trump’s ban focuses on progammes that actively promote diversity and does not prevent the NRC from doing research on equity.
McNutt concedes the point about censorship, but argues that a new DEI study would probably be the NRC’s last. “I’m completely sympathetic to [critics’] views” about censorship, she says, but “that is exactly what is being imposed on us.”
