Scientist Speaks Out: Political Disillusionment, Attacks on Science & The Fight for Integrity

My mother’s perspective is a common one. She supports Donald Trump, acknowledging concerns about all politicians but believing he’s uniquely honest about his flaws. As she puts it, he doesn’t hide his corruption. This sentiment, while perhaps surprising, reflects a broader disillusionment with the political system. Recent data reveals a stark decline in public trust, with only 4% of Americans believing the system works well as of 2023. Trust in government to “do what’s right” has been steadily eroding since 2000, reaching an all-time low of 17% in 2025.

As a scientist, this erosion of trust is deeply concerning. For decades, scientists have often been advised to avoid political engagement. But this advice feels increasingly outdated, even counterproductive. Science fundamentally relies on public support – both financial and, crucially, in terms of societal acceptance of evidence-based findings.

The End of Apolitical Science

For roughly 80 years, most scientific fields enjoyed bipartisan support, allowing researchers to operate under a comfortable, if somewhat illusory, notion of apolitical objectivity. However, that era is over. The scientific community can no longer afford to remain on the sidelines when science itself is under sustained attack. This isn’t merely about funding levels; it’s about the integrity of the scientific process and the ability to conduct research free from political interference.

My own experience as a program officer at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided a firsthand view of this assault. I witnessed clinical trials abruptly terminated with a callous disregard for participant safety, court orders ignored to achieve political objectives, and dedicated colleagues unjustly dismissed based on false accusations of poor performance. Initially, I attempted to address these concerns internally within the NIH. But when it became clear that internal channels were ineffective, I, along with hundreds of colleagues, chose to blow the whistle and inform the American public about the harm being inflicted.

This dissent coalesced in June 2025 with the creation of the Bethesda Declaration, an open letter modeled after the controversial Great Barrington Declaration. The Bethesda Declaration outlined concerns about unethical and unlawful policies at the NIH and called for a restoration of scientific integrity.

Retaliation and the Right to Free Speech

Exercising my right to free speech as a civil servant, affirmed in the Supreme Court case Pickering v. Board of Education, I continued to publicly highlight the issues I witnessed at the NIH. This culminated in being placed on administrative leave by the Trump administration on November 13, 2025. The official reason given was simply “not disciplinary,” with no further explanation provided. An unnamed Health and Human Services (HHS) official subsequently labeled me a “radical leftist” in The New York Times, claiming I should have been focused on my work rather than criticizing the administration. Jay Bhattacharya, breaking NIH policies regarding personnel matters, alleged I had been subject to two internal investigations – a claim I deny, as my performance evaluations have consistently been exemplary.

In response, I filed a whistleblower complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, alleging unlawful retaliation by HHS and NIH and requesting reinstatement to my position. The question of regret has been raised – would I make the same choice again, knowing the consequences? The answer is unequivocally yes. As a fellow signer of the Bethesda Declaration stated, “You can get another job; you can’t get another soul.”

Beyond Funding: The Fight for Integrity

Some argue that scientists should remain silent amid the current political climate. Science magazine Editor-in-Chief Holden Thorp recently advocated for a behind-the-scenes approach, suggesting that “things now are better than might have been expected a year ago.” However, from my perspective – currently on retaliatory administrative leave – this assessment feels profoundly disconnected from reality.

The claim of improvement doesn’t extend to the experiences of racial, ethnic, and gender minorities excluded from NIH research due to discriminatory grant screening processes, which continue despite being deemed unlawful. It doesn’t address the impact on the 74,000 participants affected by terminated clinical trials, or the threats to the careers of early-stage researchers. Nor does it account for the risks faced by the quarter of the U.S. Research workforce who are foreign-born and vulnerable to detention regardless of citizenship or green card status.

Thorp’s definition of success – the restoration of funding – is insufficient. While funding is essential, it’s not a substitute for integrity. The events of 2025 demonstrated that even with comparable funding levels to 2026, the Trump administration unleashed unprecedented harm on the scientific enterprise. As I’ve previously noted, funds remain controlled by an administration with a demonstrated anti-science agenda, and even as Congress appropriates funds, their release is being stalled.

Thorp’s characterization of activism as “seething” and “heated” further reveals a dismissive attitude. The core flaw in his argument, however, is the failure to recognize that scientists must fight for both funding *and* integrity. Authenticity is paramount. When public statements contradict behind-the-scenes actions, trust erodes.

Rebuilding Trust and Embracing Authenticity

While scientists generally retain more public trust than politicians, that trust is not immutable. A 2024 Pew Research Center survey showed a decline in confidence that scientists will act in the public’s best interest, from 87% in 2020 to 76% in 2024. While disinformation campaigns contribute to this decline, past ethical failures, like the Tuskegee syphilis study, have also damaged public perception. Rebuilding trust requires leaders across all sectors to embrace authenticity – a quality the American public increasingly values, as evidenced by their willingness to support candidates who appear genuine, even if their positions shift.

Scientists can demonstrate authenticity by upholding core values: truth, accountability, freedom of ideas, open debate, transparency, and the public good. Standing firm on these principles, even when unpopular, is crucial. Losing access to certain political circles is a risk worth taking to maintain ethical standards.

However, it’s essential to acknowledge that not everyone can afford to be outspoken. The Bethesda Declaration allowed for anonymous signatures to protect those in vulnerable positions – individuals on green cards, single parents working in government, and members of marginalized communities. Protecting these individuals amplifies the require for those with power to speak up.

scientists must engage in open and empathetic conversations with the public. Public opinion is malleable, and views can change through respectful dialogue. But these shifts won’t occur behind closed doors.

Finally, the scientific community must unite. Solidarity is essential to build the strength to resist those harming science. We must elevate the voices of those who can speak freely while protecting those who cannot, and reward those who prioritize the common good alongside their research.

Jenna Norton, Ph.D., M.P.H., is a health equity and public health scientist, a signer and organizer of the Bethesda Declaration, an NIH program officer currently on administrative leave, and a mother of three young children. She writes in her personal capacity.