Scholar of federal cancer research policy. Author of An Ungovernable Foe: Science and Policy Innovation in the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Recovering Chicana goth, shitposting enthusiast. Speaking in my personal capacity on matters of public concern.
Prof. Aviles
Loading...
It’s not hyperbolic to compare what is happening to science in the US today to what happened in Nazi Germany. It is vital to understand the parallels so we can preserve not just the scientific, but also the democratic functions of agencies like NIH. Let’s not doom ourselves by ignoring history.
We know where this is headed. German science, once the envy of the world, was brought to its knees by Nazi politicization. While many are tempted to draw parallels between Soviet Lysenkoism and Trump’s changes to US science, Vertesi and I argue that the most apt parallel is to Nazi Germany.
The latest proposals to politicize science by demoting peer review and aggrandizing political agendas in funding decisions, or reassign science policy roles once occupied by expert civil servant scientists to political loyalists, undermine the autonomy that has ensured democratic science policy.
That’s because, as sociologist Robert K. Merton showed, the Nazi assault on the autonomy of science highlighted the importance of democratic norms to their success. It is this autonomy that we risk losing by putting political appointees in charge of science policy at agencies like NIH and NASA.
Prof. Aviles
My new piece in @issuesinst.bsky.social with @cyberlyra.bsky.social comes at an urgent moment in science policy. New OMB rules and EOs threaten to politicize science and strip it of the democratic norms, autonomy, and pluralism meant to protect science as and for democracy
issues.org/merton-redux...
And anyone who is interested in these issues should read @nataliebaviles.bsky.social EXCELLENT book about how NIH has been run through its history, “An Ungovernable Foe.”
cup.columbia.edu/book/an-ungo...
The decimation of democratic processes that undergird state-sponsored research may be ultimately more consequential than funding cuts.
Yesterday I spoke to @aniloza.bsky.social about the paper @nataliebaviles.bsky.social and I wrote on NIH governance history — and what kind of governance works for science (presidential control does not work!)
Mark Histed
In 2025, the number of #NIH-funded investigators declined for the first time in a decade, with the steepest reductions among Black and Hispanic researchers and fellows.
ja.ma/4ujDlzG
As someone that has invoked Vannevar Bush more than my colleagues would like .... I appreciated this piece making the case that there are other figures we could reach for as touchstones amid all of the upheaval
Mark Histed
JAMA
If you have applied or plan to apply for an NIH grant, if you have reviewed or want to review for an NIH panel, you must read this piece from @27unihted.bsky.social about the detrimental changes to NIH peer review.
@jeremymberg.bsky.social @drugmonkey.bsky.social
substack.com/inbox/post/2...
