Esteemed scholar and public policy expert Alondra Nelson has resigned from her posts on the National Science Board and the Library of Congress Scholars Council.
In her resignation letter, she cites systemic failures and mounting political interference that she says are eroding the foundations of scientific integrity and intellectual freedom.
Nelson, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study, announced her departure in a powerful May 13 essay published by Time, writing:
“The aim of my resignation is to break free of powers that seek to limit knowledge and silence voice.”
Her decision comes amid growing concern that federal institutions tasked with supporting research and knowledge dissemination—such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Library of Congress—have become vulnerable to politically motivated disruption and control.
“It is impossible to fulfill their missions in good faith,” Nelson wrote.
Mounting Political Pressure
Appointed to the National Science Board (NSB) in 2024, Nelson joined the body as it faced new oversight from a controversial agency known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). According to Nelson, DOGE’s increasing influence over the NSF’s decision-making—especially in overriding expert-reviewed grant applications—has chilled scientific freedom and disrupted vital funding pipelines.
“Last week, as the Board held its 494th meeting, I listened to NSF staff say that DOGE had by fiat the authority to give thumbs up or down to grant applications,” Nelson reported, criticizing the apparent override of peer review by political fiat.
Nelson added that since January, she had observed “civil servants face termination under claims they did not reach the mark,” as well as the cancellation of grants, fellowships, and contracts—moves she believes are part of a troubling trend in federal science policy.
Commitment to Ethical Stewardship
Nelson’s resignation from both the NSB and the Library of Congress reflects what she describes as a personal and professional boundary: the unwillingness to participate in what she now sees as dishonest or compromised systems.
“The freedom to speak becomes meaningless when disconnected from the possibility of being heard,” she stated.
As a veteran of federal policy and science advisory roles—including as former acting director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy—Nelson has long been a vocal advocate for equity in science, ethical governance, and the protection of knowledge infrastructures from partisan erosion.
In her essay, she praised the continued efforts of scientists, librarians, program officers, and policy analysts, who “have continued their work despite the increasingly hostile political environment.”
A Sobering Message for the Scientific Community
Nelson’s resignation sends a strong message at a time when science, research, and public trust in government oversight are increasingly intertwined with politics. Her departure underscores a deeper conflict between scientific freedom and bureaucratic intervention, especially when expert decision-making is sidelined by administrative overreach.
As Nelson concludes her essay and steps away from her federal roles, she leaves behind a stark warning: that stewardship of knowledge must not be confused with the control of knowledge, and that silence in the face of misconduct is not neutrality—it is complicity.
Her final act of protest, she writes, is refusing to lend credibility to a system that no longer honors its stated values.
