DOE’s advisory panel shakeup has scientists worried

According to science.org, the Department of Energy is replacing six specialized advisory committees that have guided its Office of Science for decades with a single consolidated Office of Science Advisory Committee. The Office of Science manages an $8.24 billion budget and operates 10 national laboratories while funding research across advanced computing, basic energy sciences, biological research, fusion, high energy physics, and nuclear physics. DOE announced the change on September 30 and informed committee members by email, though Undersecretary for Science Darío Gil won’t comment until the government shutdown ends. Scientists like Bruce Hungate and Laura Greene expressed alarm, calling the committees “a key part of DOE science culture” and saying the consolidation “scares me.” Some researchers suspect the move reflects the White House’s desire to give political appointees more control over research direction.

Why this matters

Here’s the thing about those old committees – they weren’t just rubber stamps. Each had about 25 members and provided deep, specialized expertise that shaped billion-dollar decisions. We’re talking about everything from planning massive facilities like x-ray synchrotrons to identifying “grand challenges” in specific fields. William Madia, who used to run national labs, said these committees could make or break ideas – good reviews accelerated projects through DOE and Congress, while bad ones saw ideas “crash and burn.” Basically, they were where the scientific community could actually influence where the money went and what got built.

The political angle

Now, this isn’t happening in a vacuum. The Trump administration has been eliminating or consolidating advisory committees across multiple research agencies. Robert Rosner, a former Argonne lab director, points out that the old system funneled advice to career federal employees running the research programs. And that’s apparently a problem for this administration – they may not trust those career staffers. The new committee will report directly to political appointees like Darío Gil. So you have to wonder: is this about efficiency, or is it about control?

What gets lost

The big concern is expertise. Six committees covering everything from particle physics to environmental research meant you had specialists who really knew their stuff. As Laura Greene put it, “You will definitely lose depth.” Patrick Huber worries they might just “get a bunch of tech billionaires on it who want to offload their R&D onto the government.” And that’s the scary part – when you consolidate everything, you risk getting generalists who don’t understand the nuances of specific fields. The Department of Energy says the new committee will draw from academia, industry, and national labs, but the details are still fuzzy.

Could it work?

There is some hope. Heidi Schellman notes that the real work often happened in subpanels anyway, and those could still operate under the new structure. The consolidated committee might actually give scientists more direct access to top decision-makers. And Patricia Dehmer, a former deputy director, says “All is not lost” as long as there’s still a formal mechanism for community input. But here’s the reality: when you replace six specialized groups with one general committee, you’re almost certainly losing something. The question is whether what you gain in streamlined decision-making outweighs what you lose in expert guidance. Given the stakes – we’re talking about America’s leadership in fundamental science – that’s a pretty big gamble.