by Brendon Davis
The US government must consider and incorporate extensive scientific data and specialized knowledge when making policy decisions around science and technology issues. Scientists play an important role in these processes—Jennifer Doudna, Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson have all testified before Congress, for example. But this extends beyond the big names. Scientists and technical experts of all types work in the government, particularly in executive branch agencies that routinely consider and create policies based on scientific evidence. As of 2020, the federal government employed 281,000 scientists. Scientists in federal agencies compile information, assess current data, and ultimately shape regulations that address scientific issues. This is particularly important in spaces such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Health and Human Services (including the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration), and other science-heavy departments such as Education, Energy, and the Interior. Though this may be an under-advertised role for scientists, becoming a science policy advisor in the executive branch is a worthwhile and valuable career path for those receiving advanced STEM degrees. That is, until now.
Recent court decisions as well as policy proposals from those associated with the incoming Trump administration whittle away at the scientific decision-making power of Executive agencies and the scientists who work in them. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently overturned a long-held precedent known as the Chevron doctrine. This doctrine, established in a 1983 case, said that decisions by agencies would get deference when courts reviewed them, specifically when the law is ambiguous. In other words, agency rulemaking received the benefit of the doubt when Congress was not clear about the rules. The Court reasoned that agencies amass experts—such as scientists—for the purpose of making expert decisions that can be used to interpret the unavoidable ambiguities in laws governing agencies. Someone could reasonably disagree with those decisions, but the agency’s expertise comes out on top. For example, the 1995 case Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for a Great Oregon involved a Department of Interior (DOI) interpretation of the word “harm” in the context of endangered species. Environmental experts at DOI considered “harm” to include modifying an endangered species’ habitat. This definition was challenged as too broad, but SCOTUS ultimately held that DOI’s interpretation was valid under the Chevron doctrine. Essentially, a reasonable expert position by an executive agency has long been considered as valid rulemaking under this doctrine.
All of this changed following a ruling last year in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. In this case, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference entirely. In practice, this means that federal courts are allowed to consider and discard challenged agency policies that they disagree with, regardless of the reasonableness of the agency’s interpretation of the law or the expertise involved in making their decision. No matter one’s opinions on agency power (and this might depend on personal political affiliations and which party controls the White House), it is clear that the dismantling of Chevron deference reduces the ability of scientists and other experts to direct policy in science-conscious directions.
One other SCOTUS-instigated blow to agency efficiency involved a 2024 case called Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. This case was about statute of limitations rules, and when a business entity can sue an agency. The Court’s ruling allows for any new business entity to sue an agency for a policy decision, regardless of how long that rule has existed. Are you a large corporation that wants to challenge a long-established rule? Then simply create a new business entity and do just that. This is likely to result in agencies tied up in endless litigation. The combination of this decision and the overruling of Chevron means that in the coming years, executive agencies are likely to face more legal challenges while being given less deference, undermining scientific expertise, autonomy, and continuity in rulemaking.
While the courts have eroded agency function, an even more direct attack may be coming against scientists in the form of reclassifying federal civil service jobs. During President Trump’s first term in office, he signed an October 2020 executive order to reclassify career civil servants he disagreed with as “political appointees,” stripping them of job protections and allowing them to be fired at will. Fortunately, it was too late in the Presidential term to act on it before the transition, and President Biden rescinded that order shortly after taking office. President Trump is poised to bring this back, however, during his second term. This move, often referred to as “Schedule F,” is a policy goal of Project 2025, and Trump is reinstating the architect of this order, Russel Vought, to lead the White House Office of Management and Budget. Most estimates suggest around 50,000 federal workers would be affected. This plan could jeopardize experts in scientific decision-making roles who disagree with an anti-science agenda. Additionally, scientists who do not want to lose their jobs will stop advocating for science-conscious policies, and this may dissuade experts from entering the civil service in the future.
It is a devastating time for science when the heads of government are aiming to dismantle the federal decision-making power that agency scientists have. Even as this continues, however, there are actions that everyone can take to keep the voice of science afloat. From a legal side, some other judicial precedents, such as “Skidmore deference,” exist that allow for some deference to be given to executive agency rulemaking in certain circumstances when it is challenged, though this is not nearly as broad as Chevron. Legislatively, the bipartisan Saving the Civil Service Act has been introduced in both the US House and Senate, aimed at providing broader protections for federal workers. Calling your elected representatives to ask them to support this bill before Trump fires thousands of federal employees would be a powerful preemptive step towards keeping experts in policy-making roles.
Most importantly, if the power of scientists in federal institutions continues to diminish, it is essential that scientists outside of the federal government raise their voices. More wide-reaching and persuasive science communication is needed to counter the anti-science stances held by the ruling party. Ultimately, we must convince lawmakers, agency officials, and the public of the importance of science-conscious decisions. Pressure from the people—voters and advocates alike—is what shapes government policy. Scientists and experts from all fields should speak up in media about policy that affects their field, from climate change to basic research funding to marine exploration to geological surveys, and everything in between. Social media provides unparalleled opportunities to get true expert information out there, and there are always traditional means of communication, like federal rulemaking comment periods, newspaper op-eds, or blogs (like this one!). Voices matter, and in the face of continued unprecedented events and ever-changing scientific and technological landscapes, expert voices are essential to govern effectively and protect the interests of the American people.
Brendon Davis is a PhD Candidate in the Cellular and Molecular Biology Program at Johns Hopkins University. He is studying the mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance in dividing Drosophila stem cells. Brendon is the Vice President for Science Policy in JHSPDG, and he was also part of the 2024 cohort for the ASBMB Advocacy Training Program.
Edited by Ona Ambrozaite and John Soltis