NASA's Advisory Groups: A Shifting Landscape

In the current political climate, NASA's advisory committees are facing significant changes. The Aerospace Safety Advisory Committee, mandated by Congress, has continued its work. However, the NASA Advisory Council and its various subcommittees have been on hold since the start of the second Trump administration. The agency has announced plans to replace several science-specific subcommittees with a single science committee. This shift is part of a broader reorganization prompted by executive orders. The impact of these changes is felt across various scientific disciplines. Groups like the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) have historically provided valuable input to NASA. These groups, known as analysis or assessment groups (AGs), are not formal advisory bodies. They do not have to provide findings or recommendations that NASA must respond to. Instead, they offer insights and suggestions. Despite this, they have maintained a good relationship with NASA, receiving modest financial support. Recently, NASA instructed these AGs to pause their activities to comply with new executive orders. This pause led to the postponement or cancellation of meetings. By March, NASA allowed meetings to resume, but with restrictions. The future of financial support for these groups is uncertain. NASA is considering other changes, but specifics are not publicly known. The handling of the pause in activities has caused frustration. The Universities Space Research Association (USRA) manages the support for planetary science AGs. When NASA ordered the halt, USRA took the groups' websites offline to review documents for compliance with new executive orders. This included removing content related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). USRA stated this was done to ensure compliance with executive orders. However, this move has not been well-received by scientists, who view it as restrictive. The long-term future of these AGs is uncertain. Their funding may depend on NASA having more control over their activities. This raises questions about independence versus collaboration. The advisory committee structure at NASA is complex. Simplifying it could make it easier for the agency to receive advice. However, reducing opportunities or restricting inputs may not benefit either NASA or the scientific community. These groups are crucial. They represent the voices of their communities, both within NASA and the public. The question remains: will NASA value and act on this input? The shifting political landscape and organizational changes will determine the future of these advisory groups and their role in NASA's missions.