We know from other countries and contexts that aspiring authoritarians often target scientists, elevate loyalists, and suppress or sideline any who might have the knowledge, expertise, or power to challenge government transgression and failures to make science-based policy decisions. In response to such threats, the US scientific community can work to rebuild critical elements of the federal science enterprise now being dismantled or compromised, including science advisory committees and scientific assessments, which for decades have helped ensure that the best available science informs policy decisions.

Anti-science attitudes have historically encumbered societal progress in the U.S., often with serious ramifications. The scientific community is now bracing for upheaval as the Trump administration prepares to take office.

Should citizens decide on risky science? To explore this question of public consent and risky science, two experts with differing opinions share their points of view, in an effort to find some common ground.

Large language models used in AI bots like ChatGTP have made an old debate about data democracy relevant again.