Introduction In recent weeks, significant changes have occurred within American science and environmental policy. These changes raise crucial questions about the future of scientific integrity and environmental protections. This article explores the ongoing repercussions of these shifts, touching upon the dismissal of the National Science Board and the challenges facing the Environmental Protection Agency, among other critical topics.
Part the First: The Uninterrupted Assault on American Science Just days ago, the president dismissed all members of the National Science Board (NSB), a group originally comprised of twenty-five members serving staggered six-year terms to maintain institutional continuity. Established under the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, the NSB’s purpose is to “recommend and encourage the pursuit of national policies for the promotion of research and education in science and engineering.” Further roles include:
The National Science Board plays two essential roles. First, it frames NSF policies within the context of national guidelines set by the president and Congress. As part of this duty, the board:
- Identifies pivotal issues for NSF’s future
- Approves NSF’s strategic budget directions and its annual budget submission to the Office of Management and Budget
- Greets new major NSF programs and awards
The second responsibility of the board is to act as an independent advisory body to the president and Congress on matters of science, engineering, and education. In addition to significant reports, NSB releases occasional policy papers or statements on pertinent issues.
…
Members are selected from industry and academia and come from diverse science and engineering disciplines and geographic regions. The board remains apolitical.
The “NSF Act of 1950,” as revised, stipulates that board nominees:
- “[s]hall be eminent in the fields of basic, medical, or social sciences, engineering, agriculture, education, research management or public affairs.”
- “[s]hall be selected solely based on established records of distinguished service.”
- “[s]hall be so selected as to represent the views of scientific and engineering leaders across the Nation.”
The NSB elects its own chair and vice-chair. The chair is empowered to appoint staff to the NSB. The board’s executive officer leads the NSB office.
Anticipating this move, I saved the page listing NSB members. The following day, that link morphed into Pending New Appointments. Was there a reason for this sudden upheaval? Undoubtedly. The former NSB members exemplified the best America had to offer, having come from institutions like Caltech, Berkeley, Michigan State, Tuskegee, and the U.S. Air Force Academy, as well as international representations such as Oxford. They embodied the diversity of the United States—of all backgrounds and ages. The composition of the next National Science Board will reveal much. Jim O’Neill, the incoming Director of the National Science Foundation, marks a notable change, being the first appointee without a scientific or engineering background. This suggests a broader trend for the NSB, which could lead to the loss of institutional memory—a troubling direction.
Part the Second: The Environmental Protection Agency’s Dilemmas My upbringing surrounded me with chemical workers who initially deemed OSHA (1970) and the EPA (1970)—both established under Richard Nixon, the last liberal president—as unnecessary. These skilled individuals believed their expertise should be trusted. Through my experiences at a heavy chemical plant, I learned that these men were forced to confront uncomfortable truths: the EPA illuminated how once-pristine tidal creeks, crucial to a thriving ecosystem, were transforming into toxic wastelands. Fish such as speckled trout and blue crabs, once abundant, were contaminated with harmful substances like toxaphene and mercury. This harsh reality prompted some workers to reflect on their indirect responsibility, while others simply adjusted their fishing habits based on newfound knowledge.
OSHA introduced stringent regulations to protect workers from hazardous chemical exposure by establishing clear rules and testing protocols. Such requirements drastically mitigated the risks that workers’ families faced from chemical exposure. My own resilience to chemical odors likely stemmed from my early acclimatization, having been surrounded by them for as long as I can remember.
Elizabeth Kolbert from The New Yorker explored the current state of the EPA in-depth: Can the E.P.A. Survive Lee Zeldin?, noting that the agency was founded to safeguard both the environment and human health but has since moved to cancel safety regulations, support coal production, and neglect climate change initiatives. Unfortunately, my estimation is that the answer to her question is “No.” It’s unfortunate:
Last summer, over a hundred and fifty staff members at the Environmental Protection Agency submitted a letter to their head, Lee Zeldin, expressing their concerns about his leadership. Their primary complaint involved Zeldin’s overt partisanship, using official channels to criticize Democrats. This “politicized messaging,” they argued, eroded trust within the agency. Moreover, Zeldin’s dismantling of the EPA’s research division and disregard for its scientists’ conclusions further aggravated the situation. Notably, the letter was a reflection of the staff’s personal views, drafted during their own time, and concluded with a plea for Zeldin to “correct course.”
“If you choose to do so, we stand ready to support your efforts,” they stated.
Staffers did not anticipate much impact from the letter. “I thought it was something the administrator would toss in the wastebasket,” one remarked. “Then we would proceed with our work.”
To their surprise, a substantial backlash occurred. Zeldin, or his deputies, initiated an investigation to uncover who signed the letter. Internal communications obtained by E&E News revealed that an EPA lawyer indicated the letter posed no ethical dilemmas, as the signatories merely exercised their right to express their opinions. However, another lawyer cautioned against retaliation since “government employee speech is protected.” Despite this, the agency escalated its efforts and subsequently placed a hundred and forty-four signatories on administrative leave.
“We maintain a ZERO tolerance policy for agency officials unlawfully undermining, sabotaging, and contradicting this administration’s agenda,” Zeldin stated in defense of these actions. “The will of the American public will not be sidelined.”
President Donald Trump lauded Zeldin as “one of the superstars” of his administration, even dubbing him “our secret weapon.” In a little over a year, Zeldin has transformed the EPA from an agency focused on human health and environmental protection into one that blatantly supports polluters, filling its ranks with former industry lobbyists, erasing entire data sets from its website, and disbanding various departments. Under his governance, numerous regulations protecting American citizens from substances like arsenic, mercury, and soot have been rolled back. The EPA has abandoned its previous efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and even prevented states from taking action, officially siding with coal interests.
The American public’s will. What does this signify? The prevailing understanding of my youth suggested that Earth could endlessly absorb waste in all its forms, regardless of consequence. However, my parents’ generation learned otherwise, and it was a harsh lesson. Their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren should be ready to face even greater repercussions. One thing is clear: Lee Zeldin is not a figure like William Ruckelshaus, Nixon’s initial EPA director:
To manage the nascent EPA, Nixon appointed Assistant Attorney General William Ruckelshaus. Ruck, as friends called him, was a moderate Republican—a rarity in today’s political environment. He promptly developed an organizational framework and established the agency’s authority, likening it to “attempting a hundred-yard dash during an appendectomy.” Within weeks of his assuming leadership, the EPA initiated several high-profile enforcement actions against entities, including a steel company discharging cyanide into the Houston Ship Channel and several cities dumping raw sewage into their waterways.
“Our responsibility at the Environmental Protection Agency is to advocate for the environment in all decisions that impact our collective future, whether in government chambers, industry boardrooms, or within citizens’ living rooms,” Ruckelshaus declared.
When time allows, I encourage you to read the entire piece and reflect on the wisdom of Terry Tempest Williams, featured in Robert Shetterly’s initiative Americans Who Tell the Truth: “The eyes of the future look back at us and are praying for us to see beyond our own time.” Additionally, may I inquire: Is it merely my imagination, or does the president genuinely believe coal is clean because he was informed it is “washed” prior to combustion in industrial furnaces? Also, it appears that The New Yorker continues to provide valuable insights.
Note added in proof: Here’s a video from Breaking Points featuring a discussion between AOC and Lee Zeldin during a Congressional hearing on the EPA and Bayer (Monsanto), where AOC presents compelling evidence, starting at 1:04:29. Moreover, when expertise gets disregarded, recovery becomes nearly impossible—a disturbing trend.
Part the Third: Nuclear Power and Our Energy Future One of the most amusing claims I’ve encountered is that AI data centers will rely on “pocket” nuclear reactors. While small nuclear reactors do power aircraft carriers and submarines, this concept crosses into different territory. Nuclear engineers may disagree, but no viable solution for the long-term sequestration of high-level nuclear waste yet exists.
Chernobyl and Fukushima were disasters waiting to unfold, as elucidated by Paul Josephson in his note at Engelsberg Ideas, Chernobyl is the cost of nuclear hubris:
Chernobyl generated new classes of radioactive individuals. Approximately 700,000 ‘liquidators’ engaged in efforts to extinguish the reactor’s fire. They demolished contaminated buildings, removed irradiated topsoil, and managed hazardous materials. ‘Biorobots’ worked in one-minute intervals on the reactor’s roof, shoveling uranium fuel rods and searing graphite into the gaping chasm below. To contain the radiation, workers covered the reactor with a delicate concrete “sarcophagus,” which underwent a secondary encasement in 2017. Recently, occupying Russian forces in Ukraine briefly entered Chernobyl, stirring up radiation. They caused damage to the second enclosure with drone activity, necessitating repair, and have shelled Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, effectively making it a potential radioactive catastrophe.
Nuclear accidents devastate ecosystems. Military personnel were deployed into the 1,000-square-mile Chernobyl exclusion zone to track, capture, and dispose of family pets, livestock, and wild animals to prevent radiation from spreading. Many regions will remain radioactive for centuries, with only a handful of large mammals seeing any recovery. Ultimately, this catastrophe resulted in an estimated 5,000 to 50,000 additional cancer fatalities and countless cases of childhood leukemia and thyroid cancer. An expansive area, roughly the size of Illinois or Georgia, became contaminated.
Furthermore, the case of Plant Vogtle in Georgia illustrates how nuclear reactors represent a concept that should have never emerged, especially given the long-lasting financial burden on Georgia Power customers. Josephson aptly summarizes the prevailing arrogance within the nuclear industry:
Hubris is omnipresent in the nuclear industry. The construction of a single reactor has reached $20 billion, waste is vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and clean-up operations are lagging dramatically, costing trillions. While no incident at a wind or solar facility could match the infamy of Chernobyl, that name will forever symbolize technological failure.
Technology can either serve humanity or dominate it. The former is preferable, but the latter is increasingly likely. Ultimately, the choice remains in our hands.
Part the Fourth: Envisioning Life as It Should Be, Regardless of Origin Jason Peters offers profound insights into nostalgia in his introductory essay for the upcoming issue of Local Culture. Here’s a brief excerpt:
Christopher Lasch once posited that nostalgia distorts memory. While I largely agree with his assertions, I must respectfully dissent on this point. If we set aside the complexities of memory—an aspect I align with the Augustinian view, which regards memory as a human faculty revealing divine intention—we are still compelled to address nostalgia with careful expression. Nostalgia, in its true essence, denotes homesickness. In its etymological sense, it is a longing not for time, but for place. Odysseus yearns for Ithaca; he does not seek the enchantment of Ogygia.
Those who wish to evade a comprehensive understanding of nostalgia have various options available: a casual misuse of language, a lack of attention to tradition, a capitulation to norms, and apathy towards the rich history in words awaiting revival. My recollections qualify as nostalgia, yet they diverge from the “yearning for a non-existent past” typically attributed to critics: it prompts thoughtful reflection on one’s past and experiences.
Consider Wordsworth’s notion that the child is the father of the man, and how each of us might aspire for our “days to be / Bound each to each by natural piety.” Is it not true that children—those liberated into real environments rather than dominated by digital distractions—will naturally adapt their play to their surroundings? I concede that such spaces are scarce today, rarer than no-hitters, educational integrity, or unscathed students at fraternity parties. Yet, this obligation extends beyond children; it is upon them to nurture future generations capable of valuing their surroundings.
Adults, at least once upon a time, could achieve this. Do you remember your uncles and their horseshoe games? Hay rides and picnic gatherings? Makeshift bike ramps constructed from planks and logs? The thrill of sliding into home base?
I reminisce not only about childhood athletic endeavors but also the vibrant culture of men’s fast-pitch softball that I cherished as a child. I recall watching Big Herm Williams pitch for Steve’s Amoco at a well-lit park in Scottville, Michigan, where intense competitions unfolded throughout the summer. Nearby, one could grab a stick of beef jerky from the Dairy Barn and pretend it was chewing tobacco while watching the game. Such local traditions fostered community cohesion, embodying an experience where collective memories were significant.
An equally humane existence can also thrive in urban environments, regardless of size. It is our duty to cultivate this possibility.
Part the Fifth: Addressing Our World and What Lies Ahead In a previous review of Feed the People: Why Industrial Food is Good and How to Make It Even Better, I critiqued Jan and Gabriel for their superficial understanding of Wendell Berry, as it stemmed from a narrowly focused 50-year-old critique, The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture, rather than a comprehensive view of his works. This week, I received a poignant message from The Berry Center:
The need arises in me now
to speak through the years
to those who will ultimately inhabit this land
after we have faced ruin, in the absence
of many like me who are now
gone or have surrendered their minds
to machines and become unfamiliar,
“overqualified” for the labor
required to restore, as much as humanity can
restore, what has been damaged.
To you, wherever you may be, I say: Come,
willing to stay.
Come, prepared to learn what this land,
like none other, demands from you
and your descendants, if you intend
to remain. “This land responds
to good care,” I repeatedly heard
my father express, driven by a desire to heal, to mend what had been broken.
And so to you, whose lives
are intertwined with the life of this land
which I cannot predict, I say:
Come, and treat it kindly.
Wendell Berry
“2010, XI.” This Day: Collected & New Sabbath Poems, Counterpoint, 2013, p. 355
In closing, Happy May Day! Thank you for your time, and I look forward to connecting with you next week, if Delta has enough jet fuel to get us to Scotland. In the meantime, take some time to appreciate poetry and stay informed through our portal. Consider the words of Mary Oliver:
I WAKE CLOSE TO MORNING
Why do people persist in asking for
God’s identity papers
when the dawn breaking through the darkness
is more than sufficient?
Any deity might turn away in disgust.
Picture Sheba approaching
Solomon’s kingdom.
Do you think she needed to inquire,
“Is this the place?”
