Can science stay neutral when politics gets hot?
# **The National Academies Under Fire: When Science Meets Politics**
The National Academies of Science has long stood as a bastion of reason—a steady voice in an era of chaos. Founded in the crucible of the Civil War, its mission was clear: provide unvarnished, expert counsel to the government, no matter how stormy the political winds. For decades, it earned a reputation for tackling thorny issues, even when the answers ruffled powerful feathers. But now, the Academies find themselves in uncharted territory, caught in a dispute that exposes a harsh truth: in today’s polarized climate, science’s role in public life is shifting—and not always for the better.
## **The Climate Lawsuits That Sparked a Crisis**
The conflict erupted over a question that has grown increasingly urgent: *How much can we blame human-caused climate change for extreme weather?* Thanks to advances in attribution science, researchers can now compare modern disasters to what might have occurred without humanity’s greenhouse gas pollution. The results are often damning: the fingerprints of climate change are all over heatwaves, hurricanes, and wildfires. But this clarity comes with a price.
For fossil fuel companies, the implications are dire. If courts begin accepting this science, lawsuits over storm damages could gain a powerful new weapon. That’s why oil and gas giants are pushing back with everything at their disposal—lobbying, legal pressure, and now, political retaliation.
## **A Clash Over Judicial Guidance**
The trouble didn’t materialize overnight. A few years ago, the Academies played a role in updating a critical guide for judges on handling scientific evidence in court. For the first time, the manual included a chapter on climate change—an acknowledgment of its real-world impact. But this modest inclusion infuriated some Republican state attorneys general, who denounced the section as biased, despite its alignment with mainstream scientific consensus. Their pressure was swift and effective: the Federal Judicial Center, which oversees the guide, caved and removed the chapter.
The Academies, however, refused to back down. Their refusal to retract their own version of the document—a stance that amounted to a small act of defiance—caught the attention of powerful figures in Congress. And once noticed, the Academies became a target.
Congress Takes Aim
Now, a faction of lawmakers is demanding retribution. They’ve asked the White House budget office to investigate whether the Academies should lose federal funding, arguing that the institution has shown unfair bias by failing to include enough voices that deny climate change is real. Meanwhile, Congress has also taken issue with the Academies’ ongoing work on a climate report—at the same time the Energy Department assembled a separate group of skeptics to downplay the risks of carbon emissions.
The irony is striking: one arm of the government is funding both sides of the same debate, as if scientific truth were a matter of opinion rather than evidence. The message is clear: when facts become political, neutrality is no longer enough.
The Stakes for Science and Policy
The outcome of this confrontation could redefine the relationship between science and policy in America. If the Academies retreat, it may signal that sticking to "just the facts" is no longer a viable strategy in an era of relentless politicization. If they stand firm, they risk losing funding, credibility, or both.
One thing is certain: this episode lays bare a troubling trend. When science collides with politics, neutrality doesn’t guarantee safety. Sometimes, the pursuit of truth demands more than detachment—it requires the courage to make a stand.
