On scientific matters, who's minding the store at the Executive Branch?

Well, it turns out, nobody! Thanks to ongoing work by the Washington Post and the Partnership for Public Policy, the Trump Administration has failed to nominate 354 of 577 Executive Branch positions that require Senate oversight (over 60% of these positions are vacant!). Now Senate oversight has not meant much in the first 200+ days of the administration, but we often hear how President Trump and his supporters lament Congress' slow pace at approving his appointments, with criticism often aimed at the minority party.

It turns out we have real, actual data (truth!) to indicate how things are going with those appointments. I've attempted to identify the remaining appointments that are related to science (including environmental areas) posts from this Washington Post Powerpost, and was astonished to find 75 vacancies with not even a nominee!

75!

I suppose one could argue that it is best not to have Mr. Trump's imprimatur on these positions, since so far he has given us some real scientifically-credible winners like Betsy DeVos, Scott Pruitt, and Rick Perry at the tops of their departments, with even worse picks beneath them in the few science positions that have been filled.  But with important budget and policy decisions looming inside the Beltway, and virtually no-one with scientific expertise advising the high-level administrators and the President, one has to wonder about our present administration's taste for truth in decision-making. I've assembled all of the data for these missing government scientific administrators in a spreadsheet, valid as of 8/8/2017, so far as I can tell. I left out a bunch that have science components, as well, and made notes where appropriate on some I retained on a second pass. And don't get me started on the advisory groups and commissions that are being dismantled, who do the real honest work on reviewing important peer reviewed science on climate, the environment, public health, energy, and nuclear proliferation.

I wonder if one could argue the classic Trump line that these are superfluous and redundant positions, and so government is better off saving these $ and leaving them unfilled, just like all of these non-competitive, redundant, and unnecessary regulations that are being torpedoed that we keep hearing about.  Why, the entire White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has been closed - winning saving$ there!  [You can follow the #OSTP diaspora on Twitter!] This is the same office that under Vice-President Al Gore's leadership helped to create the GLOBE program, an organization I have worked with for nearly 20 years. GLOBE, and my involvement in it, will continue for the time being, thanks to bipartisan support and agencies such as NASA, NSF, and NOAA. But I truly wonder about the health of the public's attitude towards science and science literacy/education at this moment in time in the USA. I feel like going into the kitchen and spatchcocking something.

But before I do, let me thank those hard-working civilians and contractors who carry out the important scientific work regardless of partisanship issues; many have passed through my labs and classes here at Lane, at FSU and elsewhere. And I do get it, and respect, those who opt to leave federal service when the distaste becomes toxic. You are all our heroes!