“America Can’t Be Great Without Great Science. That Is Where the Academies Can Help.”

I’m also concerned about how this environment is affecting our staff, who are the backbone of our mission. Their dedication and expertise make it possible for us to produce our evidence-based advice.  

We are here to advise the nation and to advocate for the use of science in decision making on questions such as “Should I get my children vaccinated?” “What are my chances of being more susceptible to cancer and other disease based on lifestyle choices?” These are all decisions that people have to make every day, and all we advocate for is for science to be used when actually deciding, “If I make that decision, how will it impact me?”

While our reports may point to the value of investing in science, it is not the job of the National Academies to advocate for bigger science budgets, or for more federal workers in the science domain. But it is our job to point out cases where science is not being used, how it could be used, and the potential peril for the country if it is not.

At a time when a lot of people feel as if science is under attack, many have expressed hope that the Academies would issue a statement to speak up, if you will, to defend science. What is your thinking about issuing such statements given the stress that the research enterprise is under?  
McNutt: Statements that are made by organizations, whether they are scientific societies or honorary organizations or universities, very much help our beleaguered colleagues feel that they are supported, and that they are heard, and that someone understands the plight they’re in. And we do understand. I hear the concerns every day, with stories that break my heart. After all, our members, volunteers, and staff have dedicated their lives to science and the understanding and advice it can offer the world.  
But do I think that statements have any impact on the policy decisions? I would say no. I think the major risk with public statements is that you close out more productive avenues of communication, avenues that actually lead to more impactful decisions in the long run.  

In that case, what is the National Academy of Sciences doing to protect the research enterprise?
McNutt: First of all, we are working to reach officials in the administration who will be sensitive to the likely impacts of these actions on the health, security, economic opportunity, and well-being of all Americans.

Second, we are using the contacts here at the Academies and among our members to directly appeal to other individuals who may share some of the administration’s goals. We are working with them to demonstrate how the scientific evidence base suggests some of the tactics the administration is taking now may not lead to the goals that they want to accomplish.  

I am also preparing to deliver my second annual State of the Science address a little later this year. Last year’s address set a baseline for what kind of contributions science was making to U.S. leadership. In what areas of research are we leading? Where are we losing leadership? What are the threats to the U.S. scientific enterprise?  

This year’s address will include many measures which show that the scientific enterprise in America is being impoverished in the long-term, and that this will likely lead to shortages of talent and innovations that spur new industries.  

Why is federal support for research so important?
McNutt: We need to underscore the fact that stable federal funding of research is the main mode by which radical new discoveries have come to light — discoveries that have enabled the age of quantum computing and AI and new materials science. These are areas that I am sure are very important to this administration as well.

When industry gets involved and does its own research, industry invests in those technologies that lead to profitable products and services. But the private sector is less likely to invest in new opportunities that simply lead to better quality of life for all Americans but don’t create value for shareholders. So, I worry that the fruits of scientific research will be driven only by the profit motive if the federal government steps away from its role in the research funding environment.

Concerns have been raised about how the National Academies are protecting their independence and the integrity of their study process given the need for the Academies to comply with recent executive orders. How do you respond to that?
McNutt: Our values haven’t changed. We are committed to producing the best evidence for policy choices. For any report from a consensus committee, it must go through our independent report review process. Our report review is a gold standard for making sure that all findings and recommendations are evidence-based, which is the way by which science decides what is trustworthy. We want to ensure that the work of our expert volunteers stands the test of time, with impacts that span administrations.  

In what areas do you see the National Academies advising the new administration?
McNutt: The mantra of this administration is, of course, to make America great. Well, science has been a big part of what has made America great, and America can’t be great without great science. That is where the Academies can help. If the nation has to prioritize areas of science to fund, I think the Academies can help by identifying the areas that are poised for breakthroughs or that can greatly contribute to America’s future, and how to lead the world in these areas. I think that is the kind of analysis that the Academies are uniquely suited to do.

For example, we are doing a fast-track study on reducing red tape for researchers that should be useful to the new administration. It could dramatically increase the efficiency of federally supported science. I am actually quite intrigued by the thought that AI could be harnessed for regulatory compliance.  

In fact, the Academies are doing a great deal of work around AI more broadly, and we’ve done important studies on quantum computing, next-generation nuclear and energy security, and other areas that the administration has identified as priorities.  

How are the National Academies engaging with the Trump administration?  
McNutt: As mentioned earlier, we are reaching out to cabinet secretaries and leaders of independent government agencies as they have been confirmed, to find out how our evidence-based analyses can be helpful. At the same time, we are also, of course, working through Congress, and this is where Academy members in their role as constituents have an advantage, particularly Academy members whose representatives are on key committees with oversight on appropriation, science, and other research-related areas. I really encourage members to talk to their members of Congress; as their constituents, they have more impact.

What is the best case that you can make right now in terms of the value of science to society?
McNutt: There’s abundant evidence of how science has benefited the public, globally and here in the U.S., specifically. There is so much that we take for granted in our quality of life that would not exist if it were not for science.

Molly Galvin is Director, Executive Communications at The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The interview was originally posted to the website of the National cademies.  ·