According to science.org, the Department of Energy is eliminating six specialized advisory committees that have guided its Office of Science programs for decades, replacing them with a single Office of Science Advisory Committee. The Office of Science manages a massive $8.24 billion budget and operates 10 national laboratories with facilities like x-ray synchrotrons and particle accelerators. The change was announced on September 30 and communicated to committee members via email shortly after. Researchers like Bruce Hungate, who chaired the Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee for six years, call these panels “the most consequential service work” they’ve done in science. Condensed matter physicist Laura Greene says the consolidation “scares me,” reflecting widespread concern among scientists who rely on these committees for input.
<h2 id="why-researchers-are-worried”>Why researchers are worried
Here’s the thing about those six committees – they weren’t just rubber-stamp groups. Each had about 25 members specifically selected for expertise in areas like high energy physics, nuclear physics, or biological research. They did real work – like when the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel spent three years developing a long-range plan, or when the Basic Energy Sciences committee told researchers their x-ray source improvement plan was too timid and needed reworking. These weren’t just talking shops – they shaped billion-dollar decisions.
And the meetings mattered beyond just giving advice. Former lab director William Madia says they drew congressional staffers and officials from other agencies. “If you got a good review, you got accelerated, both by the DOE and by the Congress,” he notes. “Conversely, I watched ideas crash and burn in those committees.” That’s the kind of real-world impact that researchers are afraid of losing.
The political angle
Now, here’s where it gets interesting. None of these committees have met since President Trump’s second term began in January. This isn’t happening in isolation – other research agencies are seeing similar consolidations. Some observers, like former Argonne National Laboratory director Robert Rosner, suggest this is about reducing the influence of career federal employees. The old system funneled advice to the “feds” running research programs, but the new committee will report directly to political appointees like Undersecretary Darío Gil.
Basically, it looks like the administration wants more direct control over scientific advice rather than having it filtered through career staff. And when you’re talking about $8 billion in research funding, that’s a pretty significant power shift.
Could this actually work?
Some researchers are trying to stay optimistic. Particle physicist Heidi Schellman notes that the real work often happened in subpanels anyway, and those could still exist under the new structure. “The important thing to retain is the subpanel process,” she says. And former Office of Science deputy director Patricia Dehmer insists “all is not lost” as long as there’s still a formal mechanism for community input.
But let’s be real – can one committee really provide the same depth of expertise as six specialized panels? Laura Greene puts it bluntly: “You will definitely lose depth.” And there’s genuine concern about who gets appointed. Particle physicist Patrick Huber raises the nightmare scenario: “If you just get a bunch of tech billionaires on it who want to offload their R&D onto the government, you know…” He doesn’t finish the thought, but he doesn’t need to.
The Department of Energy says the new committee will include members from academia, industry, and national laboratories, but we’ll have to wait and see what the actual composition looks like. In the meantime, scientists who’ve spent decades building these advisory relationships are watching nervously. When you’re making decisions about billion-dollar facilities and long-term research directions, losing specialized expertise isn’t just inconvenient – it could have real consequences for American scientific leadership.
