SOCORRO, NM – 1999: These twenty-seven mobile antennas, known as the Very Large Array (VLA), receive radio signals, some extremely faint, from around the world, 1999 near Socorro, New Mexico. The VLA is a radio telescope built by the National Science Foundation and launched in 1980. This facility has allowed scientists to gather detailed images of natural cosmic phenomena such as the birth of new stars, galactic collisions, our own solar system, and even the suspected black hole at the core of our Galaxy. The questions that man has tried to answer by looking at the heavens with such powerful telescopic instruments are at the heart of his search for meaning in his individual life as well as meaning in general. It is hoped that the study of the universe, or “cosmology”, including how stars, galaxies, black holes, etc. form and evolve, with increasingly sophisticated telescopes driven by increasingly sophisticated computers, will answer these questions. But it seems that as each more powerful observatory comes online, even more probing questions arise. Will we ever uncover the secret of the true nature of the universe and thus the reason for existence in general and our existence in particular? (Photo by Joe McNally/Getty Images)
Getty Images
On Friday, April 24, 2026, the White House fired all 24 members of the National Science Council. According to the National Science Foundation websitethe next scheduled board meeting is May 5.
Most people outside the research business have never heard of NSB, so it’s worth saying what it is. The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 created the NSF with two heads: a director and a board of trustees. Together they set the strategic direction of an agency that now distributes wholesale $9 billion annually in federal research funding, approve its budget submissions, and approve major new programs. Board members are appointed for their distinguished records in science, engineering, education, and public affairs, drawn from industry and academia, and confirmed for staggered six-year terms so that scientific research priorities are determined by the long arc of scientific progress, not by the election cycle. The statute requires that members be selected “solely on the basis of certified records of distinguished service.”
That last sentence is one I keep coming back to.
circa 1940: American scientist, inventor and administrator Vannevar Bush (1890 – 1974), whose “differential analyzer” was the forerunner of the computer. He served as director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development throughout World War II and authored an influential report that led to the establishment of the National Science Foundation. (Photo by MPI/Getty Images)
Getty Images
American scientific excellence is often discussed as if it were a product of talent or funding. It is really a product of institutions, of the glittering architecture of boards, charters, terms of service, peer review and institutionalized independence that the post-war generation deliberately built. The structure is traced back to Vannevar Bush’s 1945 exhibition Science, the endless frontierwhich argued that federal science required governance insulated from political pressure and stability of support beyond each individual budget cycle. The five-year struggle to translate Bush’s vision into law turned largely on issues of independence and accountability, and staggered six-year terms were part of the resulting compromise. The six-year term exists for a reason. Staggered appointments exist for a reason. “Distinguished service only” is in the articles of incorporation for a reason.
The operation of the board has been challenged in the past, but always on existing terms. As recently as 2022, scholars were discussion on how to modernize the board’s role, proposing to reduce its administrative duties and make NSF more like other federal agencies. But other federal agencies are precisely those most exposed to political control. Their leaders serve at the pleasure of the president. Their priorities change with each administration. The reason NSF’s structure is unusual is that postwar planners didn’t want science funding to work that way. Even would-be reformers recognized this: they proposed keeping staggered board terms and statutory independence intact.
These structures depend on a shared understanding, among administrations and parties, that some institutions are worth preserving even when they constrain you. When that understanding disappears, the structures themselves do not survive long.
The National Scientific Council is scheduled to meet on May 5. There is no agenda, and at the moment, no council. This absence is something worth noting, beyond the news of any particular layoff. The question is not who sits on the board. The question is whether the kind of board envisioned by the 1950 law still exists in practice, and what American science looks like if it doesn’t.
