Scientific inquiry has suffered another blow amidst the ongoing science crisis and loss of public trust. 
 

The New York Times revealed that genetic data from over 20,000 U.S. children, gathered over the last decade, has been “misused” for “race science”—defined as “an organized system of misusing science to promote false scientific beliefs in which dominant racial and ethnic groups are perceived as being superior”—leading to an activist outcry to censor such data supported and shielded by the Times. While the data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (ABCD Study) was improperly released to researchers outside the study multiple times, including to an unidentified Chinese researcher, the misuse of taxpayer-funded data by scientists should not preclude it from the public eye. 
 

Censorship of data unrelated to national security can prevent important scientific work in fields such as genetics, impeding research into life-saving treatments that could be individually tailored to the patient and disease based upon genetic predisposition, not based on ideologically fueled views of race or sex differences. Take, for instance, this example published by City Journal. In 2022, James Lee claimed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) withheld access to an important database “if it thinks a scientist’s research may wander into forbidden territory”—specifically the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP). Lee explains the implications of NIH’s decision,
 

The cost of this censorship is profound. On a practical level, many of the original data-generating studies were set up with the explicit goal of understanding risk factors for various diseases. Since intelligence and education are also risk factors for many of these diseases, denying researchers usage of these data stymies progress on the problems the studies were funded to address. Scientific research should not have to justify itself on those grounds, anyway. Perhaps the most elemental principle of science is that the search for truth is worthwhile, regardless of its practical benefits.  

However, this example is not the only one to be found. Shenanigans and censorship happen in various scientific fields. 
 

Elizabeth Weiss, an American anthropologist and professor emeritus in the Department of Anthropology at San Jose State University, has written extensively about the censorship of science, particularly in archaeology and artifact research. 
 

In 2024, Weiss noted that researchers applying for grants to the National Science Foundation (NSF) had to consider whether their projects would “impact tribal resources or interests” under the May 2024 NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG). If research “impacted” a federally recognized tribe, the researcher would need to obtain permission from the tribe or tribes before receiving NSF funding. Weiss explained, “Research conducted on tribal lands—whether research on the plants or animals—falls under this category.” Any mention of a tribe’s name in research would likely be of interest to said tribe because tribes are “sovereign nations” according to the NSF. The deeper issue and real reason for obtaining tribal permission is that tribal governments seek to avoid the publication of damaging information—a shift driven by postmodern identity politics, said Weiss.  
 

For all these reasons, coupled with the extra time it takes to ‘build relationships’ and NSF’s decision to allow tribal governments to determine the timeline for obtaining approval, it seems clear that this is just another example of how the U.S. government has embraced post-modern identity politics to hijack science. The NSF shouldn’t be in the tribal public relations business; it should be supporting science. 

Notably, although the version of NSF’s PAPPG that Weiss mentions was published in 2024 under Biden’s presidency, it has received only minor supplemental policy changes since then, and the 2024 PAPPG is still listed as the current version. 
 

Science’s politicization extends beyond leaked data and virtue signaling to secure NSF grants. 
 

The irreproducibility crisis of science and its bearing upon higher education has been well documented by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) over the years. Irreproducible studies have discredited the sciences and wasted funding. They have also led to public distrust when such research is used by policymakers to enact legislation or expand the regulatory state, only to turn out that the science is wrong or was skewed to fit an ideological narrative. There are many factors that have contributed to the ongoing legitimacy crisis, but a few worth noting from our 2018 report, The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science, are: lack of statistical standards, uncontrolled researcher freedom, absence of data transparency, premium on positive results, ideological groupthink, and science activism, among others. 
 

Thankfully, the Trump administration is taking steps to fix the crisis. The May 23, 2025, Executive Order “Restoring Gold Standard Science” seeks to improve reproducibility standards within federal agencies. David Randall notes in an article for Minding the Campus that the Trump administration is justified in the steps it has taken to reform the sciences—and policy institutions, as well as state and local policymakers should join in. This is necessary to justify government science policies to the American public. Randall also states, 
 

Federal policymakers also should reform the structure of the American university, redesign the federal government’s indirect cost funding formulas for university research, prohibit discrimination in the guise of illiberal programs and policies such as ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion,’ and much more. But reproducibility reform is a first-order priority.   

One can hope that in 2026, policymakers will continue on the path of government science policy reform and perhaps champion reform of science within higher education.   
 

Since I cannot claim to be a science expert, I’ll point readers to our work on science, as well as to that of J. Scott Turner, the Director of Science Programs at NAS, and a frequent contributor to Minding the Campus.
 

The examples above illustrate how, when science is manipulated to serve an ideology over truth, data is hidden and/or manipulated to fit an activist narrative, and scientists cannot produce reproducible studies, public trust in scientific institutions shatters—leading to more bad science and a lack of proper accountability. Worse, such practices open the door to censorship, a dangerous path for scientific inquiry. Restoring science to the pursuit of truth and rigorous inquiry will require introspection and likely external pressure, but it is necessary to ensure accountability and transparency to last the test of time.
 

Until next week.  

P.S. NAS is launching a new science report titled Rescuing Science. Restoring Science as Civic Virtue on Tuesday, February 17, at 6 pm ET. The event will be hosted at our New York City office, but also will be livestreamed. If you are interested in attending either virtually or in person, please peruse the event listing here. We hope you join us!

About the NAS