Misryoum reports that dozens of federal science advisory panels were terminated, and public access to meetings has declined, shifting how science advice reaches policymakers.
A quiet but far-reaching change is reshaping how the U.S. government gets scientific guidance: key advisory panels are being axed, and public access to meetings is shrinking.
Misryoum reports that, across federal agencies, more than 100 independent advisory panels have been terminated.. These committees. which often draw on scientists and outside experts. are meant to inform biomedical and environmental policy. help set research priorities. and provide a measure of transparency for how science shapes government decisions.
This matters because advisory panels do more than review information in isolation. They create a two-way channel between researchers and decision-makers, and they can make scientific deliberation visible to the public.
According to Misryoum, the scale of the terminations marks an unusual departure from past practice.. For example. the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). which includes the National Institutes of Health. disbanded a large share of its advisory boards in 2025.. Similar patterns appeared at other agencies including the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. while NASA also dismantled a majority of its science-related committees.
Misryoum notes that many of these panels advised on topics spanning organ transplantation, HIV prevention, high-energy physics, and planetary science. The administration linked the wider effort to reducing bureaucracy through an executive order aimed at shrinking federal administrative processes.
Still, researchers argue the overall effect is a thinner “advice pipeline” into agencies, particularly when terminated panels are not replaced.. Misryoum emphasizes that the concern is not that every committee must exist forever. but that cutting so many at once can reduce the range and independence of expertise available to policymakers.
One flashpoint involves transparency and public engagement.. Misryoum reports that some agencies sharply reduced the number of meetings open to the public. cutting the opportunities for outside input and observation of deliberations.. In some cases. agencies also changed committee membership. replacing certain viewpoints with others. a shift that has drawn legal and scientific criticism.
Misryoum also reports that HHS disbanded committees that researchers described as bridging patients, science agencies, and policymaking. Meanwhile, NASA reduced the number of committee meetings in 2025 and wound down additional advisory structures above the level of the disciplinary committees.
At the same time, Misryoum describes how researchers have begun building informal alternatives when official routes narrow.. In the biomedical sphere. some groups say they are creating independent advisory efforts in response to perceived imbalances in existing panels.. In other areas, independent groups have stepped in after federal committees were terminated, aiming to preserve consensus-driven scientific review.
In the end, the central issue is how science advice reaches government choices.. When advisory committees shrink or become less open. Misryoum notes that the public may get fewer windows into how evidence is weighed. even as agencies continue to make decisions that affect healthcare. research direction. and environmental policy.