When Expert Advisors Are Sent Packing, Who Picks Up the Slack?
Civil society has an urgent opportunity to rebuild the science advisory infrastructure.
On July 14, Nature reported that the National Institutes of Health is planning to dismiss dozens of external scientists serving on grant-review panels. The administration will likely cite a need for “new voices,” but to many observers, this move looks less like a fresh start and more like a deliberate unraveling of scientific oversight. Advisory panels, once seen as an indispensable part of science-informed governance, are being thinned out, delayed, or dismantled.
It’s a story that’s becoming all too familiar.
Earlier this year, I wrote about the elimination of members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a panel that for decades helped guide vaccine safety and distribution policy. That news sent shockwaves through the scientific and public health communities. The experts who were terminated were replaced with members who have limited vaccine expertise or a history of being anti-vaxxers, leaving a clear impression that independent scientific judgment was no longer welcome in some corners of federal decision-making. I also wrote about the dissolution of a committee on which I was serving – the United States Geological Survey (USGS) committee on Science Quality and Integrity. And there have been dozens of other stories regarding advisory committees that have dissolved.
These are not isolated incidents. From public health to environmental protection, we’re witnessing a systematic weakening of science advisory structures across the federal government. The consequences are tangible. When science is pushed aside, policymaking becomes more reactive, more politicized, and far less equipped to handle emerging crises. We’re witnessing this in real time right now with the devastating flooding news from Texas.
But here’s the thing: science doesn’t disappear just because a government committee is disbanded. Expertise remains. The question is where it goes, how it continues to function, and who steps in to organize and use it.
When the EPA dissolved its particulate matter advisory panel in 2018, a remarkable thing happened. The former members reconvened independently, without government funding or official authority. They produced the same kind of rigorous, transparent recommendations they had before. Their work was widely respected and ultimately helped steer public debate. It proved that scientific advisors don’t need a federal stamp to make meaningful contributions. But it also underscored something else: without formal structures, such efforts are fragile, unsustainable, and dependent on personal initiative.
Which brings us to the present.
Across the scientific community, frustration is growing. We know what needs to be done: government decisions must be guided by the best available evidence. However, the institutional scaffolding that enables science-informed policymaking is eroding. The public expects that policies affecting health, safety, and the environment will be guided by the weight of scientific evidence. Advisory committees are central to providing that independent, expert input. But as these bodies are dismantled and internal scientific capacity erodes, it becomes far more challenging to ensure that government decisions are grounded in rigorous evidence, potentially putting public well-being at risk
This is where civil society must step up. Nonprofits, universities, and philanthropic foundations all have a role to play in rebuilding the nation’s science advisory infrastructure. Their role in helping to reform this infrastructure is not to duplicate government efforts, but to complement them. They shore up what the agency is no longer able to do. They bolster trust, instill confidence, and create independent, credible, transparent mechanisms to keep science at the table.
Some models already exist for maintaining independent science advice outside formal government structures, including university-led expert panels, blue-ribbon commissions, and policy fellowships embedded in government (at least some of which are still active). Additionally, the Union of Concerned Scientists has released a toolkit designed to help scientists convene credible, independent science advisory committees when federal panels have been dismantled. The toolkit provides a practical guide for forming, structuring, and sustaining advisory groups, particularly in the absence of government support.
But these efforts are scattered and often under-resourced. What we need now is investment in long-term advisory capacity that is nonpartisan, inclusive, and resilient to political headwinds.
We need credible selection processes, public-facing deliberations, diverse and community-informed perspectives, and funding streams that are stable and protected from short-term politics. We need advisory bodies that can inform agencies, engage legislatures, and, when needed, offer a public counterpoint to science denial or manipulation.
Doing this well is not simply a matter of funding; it requires a comprehensive approach. It will require infrastructure. Organizations need dedicated capacity, including someone to oversee the process of building these committees from the ground up. This involves project management, convening expertise, navigating policy, and building trust with the public and scientific communities. Without that glue, even the best-designed committees may never take shape.
This is not just about process. It’s about protecting the integrity of decisions that affect millions of lives. Whether it’s vaccine rollout, air quality standards, or climate resilience planning, we’ve seen what happens when science is sidelined. We can’t afford to let it happen again.
The removal of NIH reviewers may have caught headlines, but it’s only the latest chapter in a longer story. The question is: Who writes the next one? Funders, nonprofits, and research institutions have a rare opportunity to transform the way science advice is delivered in this country. The window is open.
Let’s not waste it.
That’s it for today - Thank you so much for reading SciLight!
If you enjoyed today’s post, please like it or share it with others. You can also support the work we do to shine a light on the politicization of science by becoming a paid subscriber!
If you want to share today’s post as a web page with your network, click this button:
If you have suggestions, questions, comments, or want to drop us a line - send it all to scilightsubstack@gmail.com