Can science stay neutral when politics gets hot?

The National Academies of Science has long been seen as a steady voice in a stormy world. Born in the chaos of the Civil War, its job was to give clear, expert advice to the government. Over time, it built a reputation for tackling tough topics—even when powerful groups didn’t like the answers. But lately, things have changed. A recent dispute shows how science’s role in public life is shifting, and not always for the better. The latest fight started with a simple question: how much can we blame human-caused climate change for extreme weather? Scientists have gotten better at answering that. Tools now exist to compare today’s storms with what might have happened without our greenhouse gas pollution. The results often point to a clear link. That’s useful knowledge—but it’s also become a legal headache for fossil fuel companies. If courts accept this science, lawsuits over storm damages could have a stronger footing. That’s why oil and gas firms are pushing back hard. The trouble didn’t come out of nowhere. A few years ago, the Academies helped update a guide for judges on handling scientific evidence in court. For the first time, it included a section on climate change. Some Republican state attorneys general didn’t like that. They called the chapter biased, even though it just stated what most scientists agree on. They pressured the Federal Judicial Center to remove it—and it did. But the Academies refused to take down their own version. That small act of defiance made powerful people in Congress take notice.Now, a group of lawmakers is demanding answers. They’ve asked the White House budget office to investigate whether the Academies should lose federal funding. Their argument? The group isn’t being fair because it didn’t include enough voices that deny climate change is real. Meanwhile, Congress has also criticized the Academies for working on a climate report at the same time the Energy Department assembled a separate group of skeptics to downplay the risks of carbon emissions. It’s a strange scene: one government body is funding both sides of the same debate. What happens next could reshape how science influences policy in America. If the Academies back down, it might show that avoiding political fights by sticking to “just the facts” won’t always work. If it fights back, it risks losing funding or credibility. Either way, the episode reveals a growing trend: when facts become political, neutrality isn’t enough. Science can’t just stand aside and hope to stay safe. Sometimes, it has to pick a side.