When leaders are the first to capitulate and what they should do instead
Written By: Irene Ngun, Assistant Director of Policy and Advocacy
Outgoing National Academy of Sciences President Marcia McNutt’s “State of Science” speech today was a textbook display of anticipatory compliance and capitulation. Laden with safe, administration-friendly buzzwords like China competitiveness, AI, industry and focused almost entirely on innovation as the core solution to the scientific enterprise problem, it was a profound misdiagnosis of what ails American science in this moment. McNutt repeatedly emphasized the need to deepen engagement with industry and big tech companies like NVIDIA, Google, and Amazon as the path forward. At a moment when billionaire influence over science policy and democracy is under intense scrutiny, this heavy focus on partnering with industry felt particularly out of touch.
Instead of calling out the administration’s overreach, McNutt and too many other leaders have chosen the path of capitulation that is neither safe, nor wise. When the heads of our most respected institutions capitulate first, they don’t slow authoritarian pressure, they accelerate it. As historian Timothy Snyder has warned, anticipatory obedience “teaches authorities what is possible and accelerates unfreedom.”
What’s driving the capitulation? Anticipatory compliance and institutional self-preservation. The larger and more prestigious the organization, and the more dependent it is on federal funding, the more likely its leadership is to bend the knee early. More than a year since the Executive Orders were implemented, it’s fair to ask: what has this strategy actually gained? Many institutions appear no better off and some are worse. Take the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. In a rush to demonstrate alignment, it closed its Office of Diversity and Inclusion, altered language in pending reports, paused and deprioritized equity-focused initiatives, and shifted resources toward the Trump administration priorities. At the same time, it shed a substantial portion of its workforce due to lost federal contracts and politics. Despite these choices, the attacks and criticisms from anti-science politicians have not meaningfully subsided. The institutions that chose early compliance do not appear any safer today than they were last year.
It’s worth examining how leaders think in these moments and how it drives their strategy. In this interview with the Academies in March 2025, Marcia McNutt’s comments shows two things: 1) Distancing from the political damage—that there is a ‘plight’ but its separate from the National Academies; 2) The notion that speaking out does not influence policy.
At a time when a lot of people feel as if science is under attack, many have expressed hope that the Academies would issue a statement to speak up, if you will, to defend science. What is your thinking about issuing such statements given the stress that the research enterprise is under?
McNutt: Statements that are made by organizations, whether they are scientific societies or honorary organizations or universities, very much help our beleaguered colleagues feel that they are supported, and that they are heard, and that someone understands the plight they’re in. And we do understand. I hear the concerns every day, with stories that break my heart. After all, our members, volunteers, and staff have dedicated their lives to science and the understanding and advice it can offer the world.
But do I think that statements have any impact on the policy decisions? I would say no. I think the major risk with public statements is that you close out more productive avenues of communication, avenues that actually lead to more impactful decisions in the long run.
As outgoing president, Marcia McNutt was responsible for protecting a 150+year-old institution with considerable prestige and resources — no small task. However, if success is being measured primarily by the number of Nobel Prize winners or the current administration’s satisfaction with its recommendations, then the National Academies have lost sight of a more fundamental obligation: they exist to serve the American public, whose tax dollars fund the institution, not whichever administration is temporarily in power.
There are real financial and legal constraints that prevent leaders from naming the real problem. Yet far too many of decisions have been driven less by those hard limits and more by political optics and the fear of how its actions would be perceived. Many of the most damaging choices have been self-imposed and I’d argue a couple of things:
The idea that speaking out closes avenues of communication is wrong. Leaders can and must engage authentically with government while maintaining clear principles and speaking truth to power. In fact, anticipatory compliance often achieves the opposite: it signals weakness and invites further encroachment. When institutional leaders fail to draw clear external red lines, it accelerates politically driven internal shifts, as we’ve seen at NASEM, while breeding distrust among both the public and their own staff.
Her comments suggests a distance between NASEM and the rest of the scientific community. It frames the scientific community’s challenges as something happening to others, and by doing so denies the responsibility of leaders and organizations that should be the voice of the scientific community.
The core message that Stand Up for Science urges leaders of the science and research enterprise is simple: scientific leaders must stop prioritizing the preservation of their institutional shell over the people and the mission they are supposed to serve.
Instead of bending to capitulate, leaders should:
Use your platform to raise the political cost of interference. At this critical moment when we are once again witnessing the weaponization of the grant process by the OMB, leaders must speak out.
Draw clear red lines on scientific integrity but reject red herring issues. When leaders choose the safe route of focusing on reducing red tape and efficiency, they lend credence to the idea that science should be driven by politics.
Coordinate with peer institutions to share the risk. If you cannot speak up as a leader, the minimum you can do is engage. We all want to see science and democracy survive. Our tactics may differ, but our goals are the same. Smaller nonprofits, individual scientists, and early-career researchers have been shouldering a disproportionate share of the risk in speaking truth to power. We all have a lot to lose.
While real constraints exist, capitulation is the worst long-term strategy. It yields diminishing returns, teaches authoritarian government what they can get away with, and ultimately betrays the public trust that funds these institutions. True leadership demands calculated courage in defense of science and the public good, not managed decline through quiet compliance. The future of independent science now depends on whether leaders choose the mission and the people over institutional self-preservation.
Irene Ngun is the Assistant Director of Policy and Advocacy at Stand Up for Science Foundation. She was perviously an Associate Program Officer at the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine where she worked for the Board on Higher Education and Workforce and the Committee on Women in Science.