Thousands of National Academies members warn an NSF board firing undermines basic and applied research, urging Congress to intervene.
A shockwave through U.S. science is gathering momentum after experts from the National Academies denounced the White House for dismissing the National Science Board, warning the move threatens the nation’s ability to fund and guide both basic and applied research.
In an open letter released Monday. roughly 1. 500 members of the National Academy of Sciences. the National Academy of Medicine. and the National Academy of Engineering criticized the White House’s decision to remove the National Science Board without notice.. The signatories include 37 Nobel Prize winners. who described the action as “an alarming attack” on the capacity of the United States to sustain research enterprise.
The board was dismissed on April 24, and the researchers said Congress should resist the change.. Their central concern is that the board has long served as an enduring layer of expertise overseeing the National Science Foundation. an agency responsible for funding U.S.. research ranging across fields such as astronomy and vulcanology.
The National Science Board is structured to be apolitical and has traditionally been populated by “eminent” scientists.. Members are appointed to six-year terms by the president, and—under statute—the board approves the NSF’s budget.. The letter notes the scale of that responsibility: the NSF’s budget is described as $9 billion for 2026.
Despite its statutory role. the White House has indicated it wants to shift decisions away from the board toward political appointees.. The administration also has sought to cut the NSF’s budget by about 50 percent in 2027 and dissolve the agency’s social sciences arm. moves that the letter’s authors argue would weaken the breadth of research the NSF supports.
The dispute has unfolded as NSF grant activity appears to have slowed.. It was reported that despite Congress overriding similar calls from the administration in January. NSF largely stalled distribution of grants into April.. Civil servants at the agency. speaking anonymously out of concern about retaliation. said funding has largely been held up—except for research described as favored in areas such as artificial intelligence. quantum computing and related technologies.
Supporters of the National Science Board’s approach argue that such patterns are more than bureaucratic friction; they raise questions about how expertise is valued in the federal science system.. In this context. the letter’s authors positioned the board’s ouster as part of a wider effort to reduce the influence of independent scientific and research groups that advise federal policy in science and health.
The board’s removal comes amid other actions involving scientific advisory structures.. These include the 2025 firing by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F.. Kennedy Jr.. of all members of an influential vaccine advisory committee.. It was also reported that Kennedy has said he intends to overhaul the U.S.. Preventive Medicine Task Force, which helps set standards for health insurance reimbursements for medical tests.
More broadly. it was reported that the White House revealed earlier this year that the President’s Council on Science and Technology—long staffed with academic experts—has shifted leadership to tech industry figures. including Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg and Oracle’s Larry Ellison. with only one academic listed as part of the council.
Physicist Neal Lane. a former NSF director during the Clinton administration. said the NSF has taken decades to refine its practices. including a “vital” university partnership that helps sustain much of U.S.. science.. He argued the agency has become a model internationally. naming China among countries that have looked to the NSF. while warning that the administration is undoing that foundation quickly.
In addition to describing the board’s scientific importance, Lane criticized the direction of the agency’s leadership pipeline. The administration, he said, appears to be dismantling infrastructure built for long-term stability and scientific credibility rather than managing it through continuity.
The White House has defended its actions by pointing to a 2021 Supreme Court patent court ruling that. as described in the report. limits the power of federal officials who are not appointed by the U.S.. Senate.. Still. the board itself had previously emphasized that its roles were advisory rather than ordering. and the report says the council positions were framed as recommendations even after the high court decision.
Legislation also shaped how the board is staffed. It was reported that Congress removed in 2011 the requirement for Senate confirmation of NSB members, even though they work part-time and receive compensation for their service.
As the controversy develops, the administration has also put forward leadership changes for the NSF.. In February, it was reported that the administration nominated hedge fund investor Jim O’Neill to lead the agency.. Lane criticized the nomination. saying that if confirmed he would be the first non-scientist to head the NSF. and urged the U.S.. Senate to reject him.
Lane argued that rebuilding the NSF’s infrastructure would require a scientifically credible leader with political skill.. He urged the White House to name an acknowledged scientific leader as NSF chief. describing the kind of political acumen needed to navigate Congress and sustain the agency’s mission.
Science advocates involved in organizing the open letter raised additional concerns about independence and influence from industry.. Colette Delawalla. of the science advocacy group Stand Up for Science. said NSF is meant to be an independent agency and the board is meant to provide independence.. She said the dismissal could foreshadow a shift toward filling the board with industry figures whose priorities might align more closely with their own firms than with fundamental research.
Delawalla characterized the board’s removal as a bellwether for how expertise is treated in American democracy, arguing that even decisions that appear procedural can signal deeper changes in who gets to shape national science priorities.
The immediate fight. the signatories suggest. is political as much as scientific: the board was dismissed without notice. its role in approving the NSF budget is central. and the administration’s justifications and leadership nominations are now colliding with congressional oversight and public scrutiny.. For researchers. the question is not only who sits on the board. but whether the country’s long-standing model for funding discovery will remain governed by scientific expertise or reshaped by political and industry interests.
For Misryoum. the dispute over the National Science Board is a real-world test of how federal science agencies balance continuity. independent advice. and political control.. With the NSF funding pipeline already described as disrupted into April and planned budget changes on the horizon. the stakes extend from university labs to the health of long-term U.S.. innovation—particularly in fields that depend on steady, curiosity-driven support.
NSF board National Science Board US science policy research funding independent expertise artificial intelligence grants quantum computing
This is exactly what people mean when they say politics is creeping into science. Firing/dismissing the National Science Board without notice is not “streamlining,” it’s undermining the checks and expertise NSF is supposed to rely on. If Congress doesn’t push back here, what’s next—research priorities decided by whoever’s loudest in an election cycle?
Marissa Caldwell, I get why you’re alarmed, but I’m curious what you think the actual harm is in the short term. The NSF still funds proposals based on panels and merit review—so is the biggest issue guidance/oversight, or is this already disrupting how grants get approved? The article reads like a governance hit more than a sudden funding stoppage.
Between this and every other “we’re just making it more efficient” move, the pattern is always the same: remove expert oversight, then act surprised when decisions get worse. Marissa Caldwell is right that it’s an attack on expertise, and Trevor Whitaker is also asking the right question about disruption. But honestly, once you weaken the layer that knows how to steer the whole pipeline, you don’t have to immediately freeze money for it to go sideways.
Trevor Whitaker, I think the harm is that this kind of board is supposed to be a steady hand, not a revolving door. Even if grants still get reviewed, you lose institutional continuity and long-term planning. Plus, scientists can’t be the ones “surprised” when policy changes—these folks are basically saying they weren’t even given basic warning.