{"id":22526,"date":"2026-04-30T05:13:24","date_gmt":"2026-04-30T05:13:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/22526\/"},"modified":"2026-04-30T05:13:24","modified_gmt":"2026-04-30T05:13:24","slug":"key-us-science-panels-are-being-axed-and-others-are-becoming-less-open","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/22526\/","title":{"rendered":"Key US science panels are being axed \u2014 and others are becoming less open"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

President Donald Trump and his administration downsized US science by historic margins last year as it reduced the workforce at federal research agencies by tens of thousands of people and terminated thousands of research grants<\/a>. But another set of cutbacks in federal science has drawn less attention.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

US science after a year of Trump: what has been lost and what remains<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Across the government, the administration terminated more than 100 independent advisory panels, comprising university scientists and other outside experts who help to guide national science priorities.<\/p>\n

The cuts \u2014 driven by a February 2025 executive order<\/a> aimed at shrinking federal bureaucracy \u2014 target committees that agencies rely on to assess biomedical and environmental policy, provide guidance on setting research priorities and ensure transparency in how the government makes science-based decisions.<\/p>\n

The scope of these committee terminations is unprecedented, a Nature analysis finds (see \u2018Cancelled committees\u2019). For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the National Institutes of Health, disbanded 77 advisory boards \u2014 more than one-quarter of all its advisory committees \u2014 in 2025. By contrast, in fiscal year 2024, the agency terminated just two committees.<\/p>\n

\"CANCELLED<\/p>\n

Source: FACA Database<\/p>\n

A similar pattern of committee closures played out at other agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE). At NASA, more than half of the advisory boards were disbanded.<\/p>\n

These panels, which are governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), are typically staffed by researchers and other experts from outside the government. Some of those that were closed in fiscal year 2025 had been advising on topics such as organ transplantation, HIV prevention, high-energy-physics research and planetary science.<\/p>\n

The February 2025 executive order\u2019s stated purpose was to \u201cminimize Government waste and abuse, reduce inflation, and promote American freedom and innovation\u201d. And some scientists and agency employees said there can be sound reasons to streamline FACA committees by combining some or eliminating ones that no longer serve a purpose. But many researchers say that the scale of the administration\u2019s efforts greatly reduces the amount and quality of advice that the government receives from the scientific community and businesses, as well as organizations that represent people with diseases such as Alzheimer\u2019s.<\/p>\n

Researchers who spoke to Nature say that by terminating such a large number of scientific advisory committees and not replacing the vast majority of them, the administration is cutting off federal agencies from independent outside expertise. At the same time, it limits the flow of information from the government to the scientific community and the public.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat two-way street, I think, was invaluable,\u201d says Juan Meza, an applied mathematician at the University of California, Merced, who formerly served on two panels at the NSF and the DOE that have been disbanded. \u201cWe could act as ambassadors in both directions,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n

The terminations aren\u2019t the only changes to advisory committees that the administration rolled out last year. Nature found that the US government has sharply reduced the number of open FACA meetings \u2014 by more than 50% for some agencies \u2014 at which the public could observe deliberations and provide input. Some agencies substantially reduced the number of public reports they issued.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s new science advisers include 12 technology chiefs \u2014 and one academic<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

And in some other cases \u2014 including the prominent example of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices<\/a> (ACIP) that makes recommendations on vaccines \u2014 the federal government has drastically changed the composition of the committees, removing people who disagree with its stance and installing ones who agree. Last week, the Trump administration abruptly fired all 22 members of the board<\/a> that advises and oversees the NSF. As a rationale for the terminations, a White House spokesperson pointed to the 2021 Supreme Court case United States v. Arthrex, Inc., which it says \u201craised constitutional questions\u201d about the board\u2019s membership and the fact that its members are not confirmed by the Senate. The spokesperson said the White House aims to update the law so that the board can \u201cperform its duties as Congress intended\u201d.<\/p>\n

Researchers say that the elimination of panels and other changes seemingly contradict the Trump administration\u2019s promise, outlined in an executive order on \u2018gold-standard science\u2019<\/a> on 23 May last year, to improve transparency in federally funded science and in science-related decisions taken by federal agencies<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe fewer of these advisory panels there are, it inherently diminishes the transparency of the entire operation,\u201d says Carrie Wolinetz, who previously administered several advisory panels as the former head of the NIH\u2019s science-policy office.<\/p>\n

The White House rebutted these claims. Spokesperson Kush Desai says that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the \u201cfederal government\u2019s glut of redundant, taxpayer-funded advisory committees did little to meaningfully inform policymaking for the benefit of the American people\u201d. \u201cThe Trump Administration is eliminating the bureaucratic bloat and taking a hands-on approach to ensure that policymaking is driven by Gold Standard Science.\u201d<\/p>\n

Biomedicine behind closed doors<\/p>\n

The 77 committee terminations at the HHS in 2025 represent a sharp departure from historical levels. Since 1997 \u2014 the full extent of publicly available FACA data \u2014 annual terminations have exceeded ten only once.<\/p>\n

In 2025, the number of open HHS committee meetings also decreased, Nature found. In the ten years before 2025, the average number of committee meetings open to the public was 255. But in 2025, there were just 91 (see \u2018Closed science\u2019).<\/p>\n

\"CLOSED<\/p>\n

Source: FACA Database<\/p>\n

There are many more closed meetings at the HHS in any given year because most of the FACA committees assess research grants, a process that is kept confidential. But in 2025, the ratio of open to closed meetings dropped from an average of over 9% for the previous ten years to 4%, representing a shift towards closed meetings even outside the grant-review process.<\/p>\n

Among the disbanded groups was one charged in 2023 with making recommendations on research into long COVID and treatment for millions of people with the condition in the United States. The committee was a unique bridge between patients, federal science agencies and policymakers, says Ian Simon, the former head of the HHS Office of Long COVID Research and Practice, which was eliminated amid the government downsizing last year.<\/p>\n

The committee was \u201cdesigned to give patients a significant voice equal to those of researchers and physicians\u201d, Simon says, and its closure is a blow to research. \u201cIt is very hard to see how these actions will advance the work that\u2019s needed to understand long COVID and other infectious chronic conditions.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other panels terminated by the HHS include the Advisory Committee on Organ Transplantation, which advised the agency on policies regarding organ donation, procurement and equitable allocation, and the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, tasked with reviewing current nutritional science to inform the federal government\u2019s dietary recommendations. The federal government subsequently issued new dietary guidelines in January without the committee\u2019s input, a move that sparked controversy among some nutrition experts who argued that aspects of the revisions bypassed the scientific consensus.<\/p>\n

The downsizing of HHS advisory committees is starker than the 2025 termination numbers suggest: some of the FACA committees are also meeting less often than in typical years or have not met at all since Trump took office again.<\/p>\n

For example, the NIH leadership has historically relied on the Advisory Committee to the Director and the congressionally mandated Scientific Management Review Board \u2014 both of which have not been officially terminated \u2014 to navigate major agency reorganizations or funding shifts, says Wolinetz.<\/p>\n

But the NIH leadership did not convene either of these panels last year as the agency cut thousands of projects on disfavoured topics and reduced the autonomy of each of its institutes by centralizing peer review and other administrative functions<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Wolinetz says that it\u2019s smart to consider, on a semi-regular basis, whether each committee is still serving its purpose and justifying its taxpayer cost; some panels can become obsolete \u201cvestiges\u201d, she says.<\/p>\n

But by terminating so many committees and not consulting others, Wolinetz says the federal government loses a crucial mechanism for ensuring that its decision-making is transparent and subject to scrutiny, including by the public. Advisory committees act as a \u201clocus of public engagement that federal agencies can\u2019t do on their own\u201d about issues the government is grappling with, she says. The actions seem at odds with the \u2018radical transparency\u2019 at HHS<\/a> that is a stated policy goal of health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, she says.<\/p>\n

She also worries about cases in which the Trump administration has not terminated committees \u2014 but instead drastically changed them.<\/p>\n

For example, last June, Kennedy abruptly fired all 17 members of ACIP, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention\u2019s premier vaccine advisory panel. Claiming that the panel was plagued by conflicts of interest and acted as a \u201crubber stamp\u201d for the pharmaceutical industry, Kennedy reconstituted the committee with appointees whom, he argued, would bring outsider scrutiny. However, scientists and medical organizations contend that some of the new members have a history of promoting vaccine scepticism<\/a>, a position long held by Kennedy.<\/p>\n

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) sued the HHS over its changes to ACIP. In March, a federal judge temporary halted the installation of Kennedy\u2019s picks for ACIP, ruling that the selections probably violated federal law requiring that such panels be fairly balanced<\/a> in terms of expertise and viewpoints. The HHS later revised ACIP\u2019s charter to broaden its scope and focus on the risks of vaccines.<\/p>\n

Kennedy also overhauled the HHS\u2019s Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, terminating its existing members and appointing a slate of new ones. The new slate has drawn criticism from some autism researchers who argue that it includes people who are aligned with Kennedy\u2019s disproven claims that autism is a preventable condition linked to vaccines<\/a> and environmental toxins<\/a>.<\/p>\n

These reconstituted committees were not \u201cformulated in the traditional highly vetted manner\u201d outlined in each panel\u2019s charter, Wolinetz says. Instead, they seem to be \u201cconstituted to support particular predetermined points of view\u201d and are being \u201cused to certify policy actions the administration wants to take\u201d, she adds.<\/p>\n

Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson, told Nature that the agency\u2019s actions were in accordance with a White House order to terminate unnecessary advisory committees, adding that \u201cthese previous committees allowed the United States to remain the sickest developed nation despite spending $4.5 trillion annually on health care, driving unsustainable debt and worsening health outcomes.\u201d The HHS will continue to convene committees as necessary, she added.<\/p>\n

The HHS did not respond to requests for comment about other issues, such as criticisms of the way the agency changed the composition of the vaccine and autism panels.<\/p>\n

Loss at the NSF<\/p>\n

The NSF, which is the premier US funder of fundamental research across all areas of science and engineering, also sharply restricted its advice pipeline last year by terminating 14 of its 52 advisory committees. These had provided the agency with advice in areas such as engineering, cybersecurity and geosciences. (All but one of the panels that review grant applications for the NSF remain active.)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Exclusive: Trump team freezes new NSF awards \u2014 and could soon axe hundreds of grants<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Meza served on one of these terminated bodies, the Advisory Committee for Mathematics and Physical Sciences, and was also an NSF programme officer from 2018 until he left in 2022. He says that such panels can provide valuable information to agencies; for example, the committee he served on informed the NSF that the research community had concerns about the lack of support for mid-sized laboratories. Heeding the advice, the NSF established the Mid-scale Research Infrastructure opportunity in 2016 to support what it called \u201ca \u2018sweet spot\u2019 for science and engineering that has been challenging to fund through traditional NSF programs\u201d.<\/p>\n

The NSF declined to comment on the criticisms about the changes in its advisory committees.<\/p>\n

Consolidation at DOE<\/p>\n

Last August, the DOE terminated six FACA panels that provided advice in areas such as high-energy physics, scientific computing, and biological and environmental research. The DOE has since consolidated these discipline-specific panels into one overarching body called the Office of Science Advisory Committee (SCAC).<\/p>\n

Meza, who served on the terminated Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee, worries about the loss of specific expertise. \u201cHow good is the advice coming from a committee of people that probably only have passing knowledge of some of the areas?\u201d he asks.<\/p>\n

Persis Drell, chair of the SCAC and a physicist at Stanford University in California, acknowledges the worries researchers have raised. \u201cIn a time of turbulent change, I totally understand all of the concerns that are in the community,\u201d she says. Drell adds that she hopes to reassure the scientific community that the SCAC is listening and is serious about helping science at the DOE. \u201cI have two goals: one of them is to ensure that we have a strong basic science foundation and the other is that we are able to make progress on the strategic pillars that the administration has put forward,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Science could solve some of the world\u2019s biggest problems. Why aren\u2019t governments using it?<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"President Donald Trump and his administration downsized US science by historic margins last year as it reduced the…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":22527,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[498,8,1372,1373,9,147,1371,8500,7],"class_list":{"0":"post-22526","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-top-stories","8":"tag-government","9":"tag-headlines","10":"tag-humanities-and-social-sciences","11":"tag-multidisciplinary","12":"tag-news","13":"tag-policy","14":"tag-science","15":"tag-scientific-community","16":"tag-top-stories"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@news\/116491950731907347","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22526","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22526"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22526\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22527"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22526"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22526"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22526"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}