The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) may face suspension or debarment from federal funding following a letter from 11 Republican lawmakers. The letter criticizes NASEM's climate science chapter in its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, claiming it lacks diverse scientific perspectives and has conflicts of interest. Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows supported the letter, stating that NASEM has misused taxpayer funds. The Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought acknowledged the request.
The letter echoes previous criticisms from 27 Republican state attorneys general, who successfully campaigned to remove the climate science chapter from an online version of the manual. NASEM did not comment on the letter or potential investigations. The Reference Manual is a key resource for federal and state judges, with its accuracy deemed essential.
In response to the removal of the chapter, eight Democratic lawmakers requested its reinstatement, while NASEM's authors defended the peer review process as thorough. The chapter is still accessible on NASEM's website, and its president, Marcia McNutt, rejected calls for its removal.
The Republican attorneys general have urged the administration to consider funding suspensions for NASEM, which relies on federal funding for nearly half of its revenue. The National Research Council, NASEM's operating arm, has already seen a significant reduction in federal contracts and staff.
Additionally, Republican members of the House Science Committee raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest within NASEM's Committee on Attribution of Extreme Weather and Climate Events. They questioned the objectivity of committee members involved in climate litigation and noted the influence of private sponsors with progressive environmental agendas.
NASEM has faced scrutiny in the past, including criticism from Rep. James Comer regarding its review of the EPA's endangerment finding related to greenhouse gas emissions. Comer alleged that the review process was biased and politically motivated.
