National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a membership organization established by a U.S. Congressional charter in 1863 to advise the federal government on scientific issues. The NAS operates as an independent nonprofit organization, electing its own members and conducting government-sponsored studies through its operational arm, the National Research Council (NRC). Together with the National Academy of Engineering and the National Academy of Medicine, the NAS forms the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). The NAS has advocated in favor of left-of-center policy positions through its peer-reviewed journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Specific examples include support for left-of-center policy positions on environmentalism, LGBT interests, expanded immigration, social justice, and COVID-19 lockdowns and related policies. According to its 2024 tax filings,  the NAS received over 56 percent of its revenues ($205,077,763) from government grants. 1 2 3 4 5

Read More

At-A-Glance

Type: Non-profit, 501(c)(3)
Ideological Alignment: None
Founded:

1863

President:

Marcia McNutt (term ends June 30, 2026); Neil H. Shubin (begins July 1, 2026)

Location: Washington, DC View on map
Tax ID: 53-0196932
Most Recent Filing: 2024
Budget (2024): Assets: $1,593,716,208 Revenue: $361,712,009 Expenses: $378,834,923

Contents

    On January 20, 2025, the second Trump administration began a series of reviews and cancellations of federal contracts with NASEM. That same year, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) website listed 36 cancelled NASEM contracts totaling more than $25 million, while the total terminated contract value was estimated at over $40 million. The highest number of cancellations included contacts focused on health and medicine, environmental science, and behavioral sciences. Other programs that were terminated included those focused on climate change, health equity, and demographic research. However, programs focused on nuclear power, national security, and artificial intelligence retained or expanded their government support.   6 7 8

    In 2025, NASEM dissolved its Office of Diversity and Inclusion following several Trump administration executive orders, citing its position as a federal government contractor. In March 2026, watchdog group Consumers’ Research, accused NAS of continuing to use taxpayer dollars to support left-of-center programs focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). 9  10 11

    History and Background

    The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was established in 1863 by the United States Congress through a charter signed by President Abraham Lincoln. NAS was established as an independent nonprofit organization to provide the government with scientific expertise in all areas, including carrying out government-funded experiments and investigations. 12

    Over the 20th century, NAS expanded and was frequently called upon by the federal government, especially in times of war. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson requested the expansion of the academy to ensure increased military preparedness, leading to the establishment of the National Research Center in 1916, which continues to the present day. 12

    In 1964, NAS established the National Academy of Engineering under its charter. Six years later, NAS established the Institute of Medicine (now known as the National Academy of Medicine). Together, these organizations form the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 12 13

    The NAS operates independently of the federal government, electing its own members and establishing its own policies and procedures. The organization may receive reimbursement for studies undertaken at the request of the government, but it is not permitted to collect any fees from government agencies. 12 Today, NAS also functions as an honorific society, with election to NAS widely considered to be one of the greatest honors conferred onto an American scientist. 12

    Advocacy

    National Academy of Sciences often publishes left-of-center political stances, mostly through its publications in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). PNAS is a peer-reviewed journal that is viewed as one of the most prestigious science journals in the country, and it is one of the world’s most-cited scientific serial journals. 14

    In addition to PNAS, NAS runs a number of programs for members, including forums between the United States and the United Kingdom and the United States and Israel, award ceremonies for members, labs, public research tools, and scientific cultural programs. 15

    LGBT Issues

    National Academy of Sciences has frequently used its research and publications to support left-of-center perspectives on gender and sexuality. In 2019, PNAS published a study that claimed that the use of “genderless” pronouns “reduce prejudices in favor of men, which fosters more positive views of women, homosexuals and transgender people.” The study was cited as support for several major American companies, including JPMorgan Chase, General Motors, and Ford, dropping the term “chairman” in favor of “chair” and eliminating pronouns to indicate gender in company titles. . 16

    The NAS has published several other studies supporting left-of-center principles on LGBT issues. The NAS published a study that claimed that same-sex couples were 73 percent more likely to be denied a mortgage than straight couples.  17 In 2019, the NAS partnered with the left-of-center TransYouth Project and published a study claiming that transgender children have as strong gender identities as cisgender children. 18

    NAS has changed its statements on gender in the past two decades. Though it advocates in support of gender transition in the 2020s, in 2001, the organization published a report which claimed that “sex-based differences in biology” heavily influence human functions and behaviors. 19

    Environmentalism

    In April 2021, the National Academy of Sciences published a study that claimed that human beings have been changing the global landscape for 12,000 years. The report claimed that modern land use practices, like industrial agriculture, have stripped the world of biodiversity. The report then endorsed at least a partial return to “Indigenous or traditional management” of land.  20

    The NAS has supported the implementation of environmentalist regulations. In 2016, PNAS published a study that claimed that regulating mercury emissions would result in a net benefit to the American economy by increasing productivity and decreasing the risk of serious medical expenses. 21 In 2021, PNAS released a report claiming that the melting of ice sheets was bringing the planet to a global “tipping point” in climate change and called for rapid regulations to decrease carbon emissions. 22 PNAS has published studies rejecting more conservative proposals to reduce emissions, such as carbon pricing. 23

    The academy has attributed natural disasters and increased extreme weather events to man-made climate change, claiming that some events, such as the July 2021 heat wave in the Pacific Northwest, could not possibly have occurred without it. 24 The NAS has also argued that man-made climate change has increased the risk of armed conflicts, especially in “ethnically fractionalized” countries, and increased migration from Mexico to the United States. 25 26

    COVID-19

    During the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Academy of Sciences advocated for strict policies to prevent the spread of the virus including lockdowns and mask mandates. The PNAS later acknowledged that such lockdown measures could lead to long-term health and social impacts such as decreasing global immunities to existing viral strains as well as straining existing social inequalities. 27 28

    During the global rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, the NAS published studies that support open communication around the negative features of vaccines, claiming that transparency reduces vaccine skepticism.  29

    In June 2020, PNAS published an article on the role of face masks in preventing the spread of COVID-19. The authors of the paper claimed that face masks were the most effective way of preventing the spread of COVID-19, minimizing the importance of social distancing. After PNAS published the article, over 40 scientists signed a petition calling for its removal and asserting that there were “egregious errors” in the study. 30

    In addition to criticizing the publication itself, prominent scientists criticized the NAS process through which it the article promoting mask use was approved. Rather than going through the normal review process, in which the journal selects peer reviewers for a submitted article, the article was published through the contributor track, which allows the author of the study to select the paper’s reviewers. Critics alleged that the process resulted in bias and the publication of a paper by PNAS that would not have otherwise been accepted.  30

    Despite controversies surrounding the paper, the NAS continued to support the use of mask-wearing to prevent the spread of COVID-19. 31

    In May 2021, the NAS published an article by researchers in PNAS that made the controversial claim that sequences of COVID-19 DNA may integrate into the DNA of infected humans, making reinfection possible. Though the article claimed to provide “unambiguous” evidence in support of the theory, its claims were hotly contested by prominent researchers who specialize in retroviruses, while other critics claimed that the paper created unnecessary fear and uncertainty regarding COVID-19 vaccines based on RNA. 32

    Marijuana Legalization

    The National Academy of Sciences has published research which has debated and questioned the push to legalize marijuana. In 2021, PNAS published a study that found that a twin who used more marijuana than his or her sibling as a teenager was less likely to secure a highly skilled job due to the ways in which marijuana interferes with education. The report argued that teenagers using marijuana had more discipline problems, lower GPAs, and less academic motivations than those who did not.  33

    In 2017, NAS published a report alleging that cannabis use is associated with the development of schizophrenia, psychosis, and other mental health disorders in adolescents and young adults. 34 A NAS study that same year found that marijuana is effective in treating chronic pain for adults. 35

    Immigration

    The National Academy of Sciences has promoted left-of-center policy towards immigration. In 2016, PNAS published an influential report that claimed that immigrants increase long-term economic growth in destination countries and helps their economies avoid stagnation.  36

    In 2020, PNAS published a study that argued that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes on average than those legally within the United States. 37 The study claimed that U.S.-born citizens are over two times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over four times more likely to be arrested for property crimes. Though it generalized its results to the entire United States, the report based its findings on data that came exclusively from Texas. 38

    Controversies

    Allegations of Bias and Conflict of Interest

    In 2006, the left-of-center Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) published a report alleging that the National Academy of Sciences consistently allowed for conflicts of interest in its work. Following a year-long review of 21 NAS committees, CSPI found that nearly 20 percent of all scientists on NAS panels had direct financial ties to companies and industry organizations with direct stakes in the outcome of their studies. 39

    Of the 320 committee members evaluated, 18 percent had direct conflicts of interest involved in their studies. These included an Institute of Medicine panelist whose research was funded by the National Food Processers Association and the United States Tuna Foundation tasked with evaluating the risk of mercury in fish. In another case, 10 of the 11 total panelists on a committee studying carbon emissions had direct ties to oil, energy, and chemical industries, most of which were not disclosed. 39

    The CSPI report also found that nearly half of all panels featured in the study included scientists with easily identifiable biases that were not offset by scientists of opposing viewpoints and urged the academy to strengthen its policies on bias and conflict and interests. 39

    In 2012, the NAS was accused of having a broad political bias after it rejected prominent right-leaning physicist Jay Keyworth, who worked in the Reagan administration, from a panel. When asked why Keyworth was excluded, the then-NAS president claimed that the organization did not want to go back that far in the history of presidential administrations, despite the fact that a Carter administration alumnus sat on the same panel. 40

    In 2015, the NAS faced further opposition for allegedly silencing scientific dissent. The similarly named National Academy of Scholars, an organization of professors in the humanities and social sciences, sent a letter to NAS members urging them to nominate someone other than Marcia McNutt to become NAS president. The academy claimed that McNutt was central to three controversies in which she dismissed serious scientific dissent, even on issues intimately related to public policy issues such as chemical and radiation storage. 41

    Eric Lander

    In January 2021, President Joe Biden announced that he had selected geneticist Eric Lander to the position of Top Science Advisor, which he elevated to a Cabinet-level position. National Academy of Sciences president Marcia McNutt praised the announcement as an “inspired choice” for the position, despite Lander’s controversial history in the scientific community.  42

    Between 1998 and 2001, Lander attacked the Celera project, which sought to sequence the entire human genome and was led by one of his rivals. Lander frequently attacked the successful project, claiming that its methods were invalid in public while quietly attempting to strike deals with the company in charge of the initiative. Lander’s public attacks became so pronounced that he began to be called “Eric Slander” by Celera employees. 42

    Lander has also been accused of failing to report conflicts of interest, downplaying the role of women in scientific discoveries, and celebrating scientists with histories of making racist and sexist comments. 42

    PNAS Conflict-of-Interest Retraction

    In August 2022, the National Academy of Sciences’ membership council voted to bar Jane Lubchenco, who was the deputy director for Climate and Environment at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Joe Biden, from NAS publications, programs, and honors for a period of five years after she violated the NAS Code of Conduct over a conflict of interest. The sanction was allegedly due to Lubchenco’s role as editor of a 2020 PNAS paper titled “A global network of marine protected areas for food” that was later retracted by PNAS editors due to several data-related errors within the paper as well as one of the authors being revealed to be Lubchenco’s brother-in-law. According to the publication Retraction Watch, it was the first time in its database that PNAS had ever retracted an article solely on conflict-of-interest grounds. Republican members of the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology had requested an investigation earlier in 2022, claiming that Lubchenco had been simultaneously working as the Biden administration’s co-chair of the White House Scientific Integrity Task Force while having allegedly violated scientific integrity rules. 43  44

    Sexual Harassment Accusations

    In 2019, NAS changed its longstanding policy from electing members to lifetime positions to allow for the expulsion of members who engage in sexual harassment, discrimination, and bullying. Prior to the policy change, NAS could only ask members to resign. 45

    The policy change came on the heels of two NAS members, Geoffrey Marcy and Thomas Jessell, admitting to sexually harassing students or engaging in inappropriate sexual relationships with them. NAS had previously been criticized as hypocritical after publishing a report calling for sweeping regulations to end harassment in the scientific community while not expelling members for sexually harass students on campus. NAS expelled Marcy in May 2021. 45

    Leadership

    The National Academy of Sciences is governed by a 17-member council, which includes five officers and 12 councilors elected from NAS membership. Marcia McNutt is the president of NAS until her second and final four-year term expires on June 30, 2026, at which point she will be succeeded by Neil H. Shubin. 46

    President

    Marcia Kemper McNutt is a geophysicist who has served as the 22nd president of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) since July 1, 2016 when she was elected to her first four-year term. She was reelected to a second four-year term on July 1, 2022, that will last until June 30, 2026. 47

    Prior to NAS, she was the editor-in-chief of the online editorial Science Family of Journals. During the Obama administration, McNutt was nominated and confirmed as director of the U.S. Geological Survey and Science Adviser to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. Beforehand, she was the president and CEO of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). She also previously worked as faculty for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the University of Minnesota. 48 47  49  50 51

    Neil H. Shubin is an American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist who was elected as NAS president-elect on February 4, 2026 and will succeed McNutt when her term expires on June 30, 2026, beginning a five-year term on July 1, 2026. 52

    Joining NAS in 2011, Shubin has previously published several scientific research articles and novels, is a fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation as well as the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, is an associate editor for PNAS, and is the board chair of NAS initiative LabX. He is also the Robert R. Bensley Distinguished Service Professor of Organismal Biology and Anatomy at the University of Chicago, where he previously worked as both the vice dean for academic advancement and the senior adviser to the university’s president.  53  53

    Financials and Funding

    According to tax filings, in 2024, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reported $361,712,009 in revenues, $378,834,923 in expenses, and $1,593,716,208 in total assets, with net assets of $1,341,967,347. In 2024, the NAS received over 56 percent of its revenues ($205,077,763) from government grants. 5 54

    As of 2026, the Ford Foundation has donated over $143.6 million to the NAS since 1970. In 2022, the Foundation announced it would begin wind down its Ford Fellowships program with the National Academies before sunsetting it by 2028. 55 5

    The Gates Foundation has co-sponsored the annual NAS’ “Prize in Food and Agriculture Sciences” in partnership with the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research. The event is meant to provide up to $100,000 annual awards to scientists working on agricultural productivity and sustainability. Other funders of the event include the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and the Sloan Foundation.  56  57  58

    According to a March 2026 report by the right-of-center think tank Pelican Institute for Public Policy identified NAS as one of the top 30 out-of-state donors to member organizations of Louisianans Against False Solutions (LAFS), an activist coalition that advocates in favor of weather-dependent energy technologies.  59 60

    2025 Restructuring

    On January 20, 2025, the second Trump administration began a series of reviews and cancellations of federal contracts with National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). That same year, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) website listed 36 cancelled NASEM contracts totaling more than $25 million, while the total terminated contract value was estimated at over $40 million. The highest number of cancellations included contacts focused on health and medicine, environmental science, and behavioral sciences. Other programs that were terminated included those focused on climate change, health equity, and demographic research. However, programs focused on nuclear power, national security, and artificial intelligence retained or expanded their government support.  6  7  8  6

    In June 2025, NAS president McNutt announced that five of its divisions involving “earth and life sciences,” “engineering and physical sciences,” “health and medicine,” “behavioral and social sciences,” “and transportation” would be reformed into two new science centers within the organization: the “Center for Health, People, and Places (CHPP)” and the “Center for Advancing Science and Technology (CAST).” Under the new structure, the number of advisory boards would be reduced from 60 to roughly 10 to 12 operating units. By November 2025, total NASEM staff had been reduced from approximately 1,200 to 1,000, with 120 program and support staff laid off and the remainder departing through resignations or early retirement. 61

    In early 2025, NASEM announced it would dissolve its Office of Diversity and Inclusion, citing Trump administration executive orders, while also directing editors to omit phrasing such as “health equity” and “marginalized populations” from existing reports. A letter sent to the leadership and signed by 100 NAS members accused the directive of being “excessive anticipatory censoring.”  11 10

    In Jun 2025, McNutt spoke at the NAS’s second annual State of the Science while delivering the keynote speech in which she addressed a “pessimistic future” for American science. She further alleged “[t]he elephant in the room right now…is whether the drastic reductions in research budgets and new research policies across the federal agencies will allow us to remain a research and development powerhouse.” 62

    In March 2026, right-leaning watchdog group Consumers’ Research accused NAS of continuing to use taxpayer dollars to support left-of-center programs focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). 63

    Financial Statistics

    Total Assets

    Total Revenue

    Total Expenses

    YearTotal AssetsTotal RevenueTotal ExpensesFiling
    2024 $1,593,716,208 $361,712,009 $378,834,923 View
    2023 $1,561,553,741 $324,567,142 $364,349,582 View
    2022 $1,493,529,469 $279,925,416 $342,729,113 View
    2021 $1,716,496,615 $311,720,918 $286,829,847 View
    2020 $1,553,804,321 $351,062,351 $296,824,040 View

    Prior year filings: 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

    Revenue Detail

    Expenses Detail

    Employee Compensation

    • Number of Employees: 1381

    Highest Earning Employees

    EmployeeTitleTotal Compensation
    Marcia McNuttPRESIDENT$1,188,162
    John AndersonPRESIDENT – NAE$1,160,700
    Victor DzauPRESIDENT – NAM$1,160,678
    Gregory SymmesCHIEF PROG OFF/INT COO(BEG 2/14/24)$538,330
    Audrey MosleyGENERAL COUNSEL$467,763
    Alton RomigNAE EXECUTIVE OFFICER$449,790
    David MayCHIEF COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER$447,424
    Kenneth FultonNAS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR$423,588
    Laura Castillo-PageCHIEF DIVERSITY & INCLUSION OFFICER$421,543
    Lauren Alexander AugustineEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GULF$407,738
    Lory WingateCHIEF OPERATING OFFICER(END 2/14/24)$400,097
    Monica FeitEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HMD$397,849
    Vaughan TurekianEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PGA$384,293
    Ebun JohnsonCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER$373,465
    Victoria SheehanEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRB$361,082
    Karen C SetoNAS COUNCIL MEMBER (BEG 7/1/24)$50,000
    Huda AkilNAS COUNCIL MEMBER (END 6/30/24)$37,500
    Angela M GronenbornNAS COUNCIL MEMBER$15,000

    Grant Activity

    All-time grants received statistics from Candid dataset:

    • Total Grant Value: $1,071,993,775
    • Number of Grants: 2,936
    • Number of Funders: 496

    Selection of highest value grants received from the last seven years:

    AmountYearFunderSubject
    $10,000,0002021 Robert Wood Johnson FoundationTo support community-academic partnerships that will simultaneously (1) build capacity for research in underresourced communities in the Gulf Coast region of the United States; (2) increase capacity for data methodology and systems among researchers and students at historically black colleges and universities; and (3) build community knowledge into the creation, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data on factors affecting health equity, including climate change, structural racism, and environmental pollutants, in order to transform local public health data systems with lessons that can be generalized to other at-risk communities.
    $5,733,3582024 National Academy of Engineering FundSUPPORT FOR NAS PROGRAMS
    $5,000,0002020 Robert Wood Johnson FoundationTo develop and share the evidence base necessary for building and sustaining a Culture of Health based on health equity and intersectional equity and to develop an equity-centric organizational-change strategy for the National Academy of Medicine to implement.
    $4,864,4002022 National Academy of Engineering FundSUPPORT FOR NAS PROGRAMS
    $3,774,1892023 National Academy of Engineering FundSUPPORT FOR NAS PROGRAMS
    $3,340,9452022 Gordon and Betty Moore FoundationTo support the career development and advance the research of thirty scholars in diagnostic excellence.
    $3,250,2292021 National Academy of Engineering FundSUPPORT FOR NAS PROGRAMS
    $3,183,6742020 National Academy of Engineering FundSUPPORT FOR NAS PROGRAMS
    $3,000,0002023 Breakthrough Prize FoundationTO SUPPORT UKRAINE REFUGEES AND UKRAINIAN SCIENTISTS AFFECTED BY THE CRISIS IN UKRAINE
    $2,700,0002023 Robert Wood Johnson FoundationTo (1) develop funding and supporting resource mechanisms in vulnerable communities in the Gulf Coast region of the United States to advance community-based efforts to build regional resiliency to climate, disaster, health, and social vulnerabilities and (2) establish a continuous and multidirectional feedback system for communities in order to promote lessons to external partners, philanthropies, and relevant actors in select departments in the federal government.
    $2,500,0002020 United States Agency for International DevelopmentPartnerships for enhanced engagement in research (peer)
    $2,435,2262020 Gordon and Betty Moore FoundationTo support the early career development of twenty scholars in diagnostic excellence.
    $2,285,6832022 Donor Advised Charitable Giving, Inc.PUBLIC, SOCIETAL BENEFIT
    $2,100,0002021 The Kavli FoundationFRED KAVLI ENDOWMENT FUND
    $2,100,0002020 The Kavli FoundationFRED KAVLI ENDOWMENT FUND
    $2,015,4642024 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
    $2,013,3262023 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
    $2,000,0002020 Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management IncCOMMUNITY & HUMAN SERVICES
    $1,889,6742025 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
    $1,854,3172025 Gates FoundationTo expand the talent pool in Women's Health by supporting training and enhancing the capacity of low- and middle-income country researchers.
    $1,541,6162021 Governors Highway Safety AssociationBEHAVIORAL TRAFFIC SAFETY COOPERATIVE RESEARCH
    $1,540,2442021 Gates Foundationto conduct a consensus study of Pre-K curriculum quality
    $1,536,0002022 California Community FoundationEDUCATION
    $1,529,8182023 The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fund for Strategic InnovationNATIONAL ACADEMIES SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS AWARD
    $1,500,0002024 Silicon Valley Community Foundation

    All-time grants given statistics from Candid dataset:

    • Total Grant Value: $209,715,320
    • Number of Grants: 852
    • Number of Recipients: 339

    Selection of highest value grants given from the last seven years:

    AmountYearFunderSubject
    $6,003,2612023 Louisiana State UniversityRESEARCH GRANT
    $5,151,5952024 Louisiana State UniversityRESEARCH GRANTS
    $3,707,4172020 Smithsonian Science Education CenterRESEARCH GRANT
    $3,492,7342023 Texas A&M UniversityRESEARCH GRANT
    $2,818,8162023 Multiple EUROPE (INCLUDING ICELAND & GREENLAND) RecipientsRESEARCH GRANTS
    $2,713,8972022 Woods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionRESEARCH GRANT
    $2,620,0112024 Multiple EUROPE (INCLUDING ICELAND & GREENLAND) RecipientsRESEARCH GRANTS
    $2,300,9702023 Florida State UniversityRESEARCH GRANT
    $2,211,6012024 Florida State UniversityRESEARCH GRANTS
    $2,103,1572024 Texas A&M UniversityRESEARCH GRANTS
    $1,639,7292022 Texas A&M UniversityRESEARCH GRANT
    $1,620,9212023 University of Florida GainesvilleRESEARCH GRANT
    $1,617,7842023 Woods Hole Oceanographic InstRESEARCH GRANT
    $1,616,3342021 The University of North Carolina at Chapel HillRESEARCH GRANT
    $1,603,6032022 The Administrators of the Tulane Educational FundRESEARCH GRANT
    $1,545,4812020 Louisiana State UniversityRESEARCH GRANT
    $1,487,9782024 Woods Hole Oceanographic InstRESEARCH GRANTS
    $1,438,4682022 Population Services InternationalRESEARCH GRANT
    $1,310,2462021 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterRESEARCH GRANT
    $1,299,6122023 Mississippi State UniversityRESEARCH GRANT
    $1,281,8792023 The Administrators of the Tulane Educational FundRESEARCH GRANT
    $1,248,5792024 National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention IncRESEARCH GRANTS
    $1,236,4462022 Louisiana State University and Agricultural & MechRESEARCH GRANT
    $1,202,8652022 The University of North Carolina at Chapel HillRESEARCH GRANT
    $1,179,5082020 Urban InstituteRESEARCH GRANT

    Contact InfluenceWatch to report errors, suggest edits, or provide tips for additional profiles.

    Contact Us

    Financials, employee compensation, and grant information provided by Candid.

    Mentioned in this Article

    References

    1. “PNAS.” National Academy of Sciences. Accessed April 28, 2026. https://www.pnas.org/.
    2. Cohn, D’Vera and Jeffrey S. Passel. “Immigration Research.” PNAS. 2020. https://www.pnas.org/.
    3. Bhattacharya, Jay et al. “Retraction petition re: Aerosol and surface transmission of SARS-CoV-2.” Accessed April 28, 2026. https://www.pnas.org/.
    4. “About the NAS.” National Academy of Sciences. Accessed April 28, 2026. https://www.nasonline.org/about-the-nas/.
    5. National Academy of Sciences. Form 990. 2024. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/530196932.
    6. Wadman, Meredith. “National Academies, staggering from Trump cuts, on brink of dramatic downsizing.” Science. June 2, 2025. https://www.science.org/content/article/national-academies-staggering-trump-cuts-brink-dramatic-downsizing.
    7. Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “Trump Administration Cuts Funding to NASEM, Forcing Cuts of up to 250 Positions.” Accessed April 28, 2026. https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/trump-administration-cuts-funding-nasem-forcing-cuts-250-positions.
    8. Mervis, Jeffrey. “U.S. National Academies adopts new business model to weather a financial storm.” Science. June 18, 2025. https://www.science.org/content/article/u-s-national-academies-adopts-new-business-model-weather-financial-storm.
    9. Mallon, Elaine. “Watchdog targets taxpayer-funded National Academies over DEI, climate and transgender spending.” New York Post. March 30, 2026. Accessed April 14, 2026. https://nypost.com/2026/03/30/us-news/watchdog-targets-taxpayer-funded-national-academies-over-dei-climate-and-transgender-spending/#:~:text=US%20News-,Watchdog%20targets%20taxpayer%2Dfunded%20National%20Academies%20over%20DEI%2C%20climate%20and,initiatives%2C%20policing%20and%20climate%20advocacy.
    10. Walker, Jackson. “National science group made $200M in government funds while promoting DEI.” February 28, 2025. ABC 7. https://katv.com/news/nation-world/national-science-group-made-200m-in-government-funds-while-promoting-dei.
    11. McFarling, Usha Lee. “National Academies is altering pending reports to appease Trump administration, some members say.” STAT News. February 20, 2025. https://www.statnews.com/2025/02/20/national-academies-altering-pending-reports-to-appease-trump-administration-members-say/.
    12. Halpern, Jack. “The U.S. National Academy of Sciences-In Service to Science and Society.” National Academy of Sciences. March 4, 1997. https://www.pnas.org/content/94/5/1606.
    13. “The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.” nationalacademies.org. Accessed July 18, 2021. https://www.nationalacademies.org/.
    14. “PNAS: General Information.” National Academy of Sciences. Accessed July 18, 2021. http://www.nasonline.org/publications/pnas/.
    15. Awards Home. National Academy of Sciences. Accessed July 18, 2021. http://www.nasonline.org/programs/awards/.
    16. “GM and Ford Adopt Gender-Neutral Terms to Identify the Presidency.” Market Research Telecast. July 13, 2021. https://marketresearchtelecast.com/gm-and-ford-adopt-gender-neutral-terms-to-identify-the-presidency/100922/.
    17. Lavietes, Matthew. “U.S. Banks Banned from Discriminating against LGBT+ People.” Reuters. March 16, 2021. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-banks-idUSKBN2B82TQ.
    18. Eckart, Kim. “Among Transgender Children, Gender Identity as Strong as in Cisgender Children, Study Shows.” UW News. November 18, 2019. https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/11/18/among-transgender-children-gender-identity-as-strong-as-in-cisgender-children-study-shows/
    19. Anderson, Ryan. “After Inaugural Rhetoric on Unity, Biden Signs Divisive Transgender Executive Order.” Heritage Foundation. January 21, 2021. https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/after-inaugural-rhetoric-unity-biden-signs-divisive-transgender-executive-order.
    20. Leclerc, Emily. “New Study Pushes Origins of Human-Driven Global Change Back Thousands of Years.” Smithsonian.com. April 19, 2021. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/blogs/national-museum-of-natural-history/2021/04/19/new-study-pushes-origins-human-driven-global-change-back-thousands-years/.
    21. Eckley Selin, Noelle, and Amanda Giang. “Are Tighter EPA Controls on Mercury Pollution Worth It?” The Conversation. May 28, 2021. https://theconversation.com/are-tighter-epa-controls-on-mercury-pollution-worth-it-53551.
    22. Turner, Ben. “Climate ‘Tipping Points’ Could Push Us Past the Point-of-No-Return after Less than 2 Degrees of Warming.” LiveScience. June 12, 2021. https://www.livescience.com/climate-domino-effects-close.html
    23. Rosenbloom, Daniel, Jochen Markard, Frank W. Geels, and Lea Fuenfschilling. “Opinion: Why Carbon Pricing Is Not Sufficient to Mitigate Climate Change-and How ‘Sustainability Transition Policy’ Can Help.” National Academy of Sciences. April 21, 2020. https://www.pnas.org/content/117/16/8664.
    24. Northwest Heat Wave Impossible without Climate Change, Study Finds.” NBCNews.com. July 8, 2021. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/northwest-heat-wave-impossible-climate-change-study-finds-rcna1366.
    25. “Climate and Environmental Conflicts.” Organization for World Peace. July 16, 2021. https://theowp.org/crisis_index/climate-and-environmental-conflicts/.
    26. Lustgarten, Abrahm. “The Great Climate Migration Has Begun.” New York Times. July 23, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/23/magazine/climate-migration.html.
    27. Kane, Laura Dhillon. “Isolation and Sanitation during COVID-19 May Affect Human Microbiome, Scientists Say.” CTV News. February 21, 2021. https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/isolation-and-sanitation-during-covid-19-may-affect-human-microbiome-scientists-say-1.5317868.
    28. “COVID-19 Pandemic and Racial Trauma Have Caused Unprecedented Disruption Among Youth; School-Based Supports Can Help Address Mental Health Concerns.” National Academies. July 8, 2021. https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2021/07/covid-19-pandemic-and-racial-trauma-have-caused-unprecedented-disruption-among-youth-school-based-supports-can-help-address-mental-health-concerns.
    29. Henderson, Emily. “Open Talk about Negative Features of COVID-19 Vaccines Increases Trust.” News-Medical.net, July 9, 2021. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210709/Open-talk-about-negative-features-of-COVID-19-vaccines-increases-trust.aspx.
    30. Irfan, Umair. “What a Controversial Face Mask Study Says about Science in the Covid-19 Era.” Vox. June 29, 2020. https://www.vox.com/2020/6/29/21302489/coronavirus-face-mask-covid-19-pnas-study.
    31. Larman, Connor. “What the New Rules on Facemasks Could Be – and Should We Continue Wearing Them?” The Northern Echo. July 12, 2021. https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19436268.continue-wearing-facemasks-july-19-covid-restriction-lifting/
    32. Cohen, Jon. “Further Evidence Supports Controversial Claim That SARS-CoV-2 Genes Can Integrate with Human DNA.” Science. May 7, 2021. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/further-evidence-offered-claim-genes-pandemic-coronavirus-can-integrate-human-dna.
    33. “Teen Pot Use Could Mean Less Success as Adult.” Consumer Health News. March 29, 2021. https://consumer.healthday.com/3-29-pot-use-in-teens-could-mean-less-success-as-adult-study-2651198167.html.
    34. Cummings, William. “Nebraska Gov. Ricketts Warns: ‘If You Legalize Marijuana, You’re Going to Kill Your Kids.’” USA Today. March 13, 2021. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/12/nebraska-gov-pete-ricketts-legal-marijuana-kill-your-kids/4663466001/.
    35. Inhaled Cannabis Associated with Significant Reductions in Self-Reported Pain Severity.” NORML. May 27, 2021. https://norml.org/news/2021/05/27/inhaled-cannabis-associated-with-significant-reductions-in-self-reported-pain-severity/.
    36. Moore, Stephen, and David Simon. “Immigrants Do Not Steal Our Jobs, They Create Them in the Economy.” The Hill. April 5, 2021. https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/545572-immigrants-do-not-steal-our-jobs-they-create-them-in-the-economy.
    37. Salcedo, Jeff. “Opinion: Immigrants Are Human Beings, Not a Political Agenda.” The Daily Universe. July 6, 2021. https://universe.byu.edu/2021/06/28/opinion-immigrants-are-human-beings-not-a-political-agenda/.
    38. Boebert Introduces Resolution to Censure Biden over Southern Border Policies.” Durango Herald. June 30, 2021. https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/boebert-introduces-resolution-to-censure-biden-over-southern-border-policies/
    39. “Are the National Academies Fair and Balanced?” Center for Science in the Public Interest. July 24, 2006. https://cspinet.org/new/200607241.html.
    40. Campbell, Hank. “Political Bias In The National Academy of Sciences?” Science 2.0, August 27, 2014. https://www.science20.com/cool-links/political_bias_national_academy_sciences-90367.
    41. Wood, Peter. “Concerns about National Academy of Sciences and Scientific Dissent.” National Association of Scholars. December 15, 2015. https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/nas_letter.
    42. Aldhous, Peter. “Meet Eric Lander, Biden’s Pick For Science Adviser And A Polarizing Figure.” BuzzFeed News. January 21, 2021. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/eric-lander-biden-science-adviser.
    43. “White House official banned from publishing in PNAS following retraction.” Retraction Watch. August 16, 2022. https://retractionwatch.com/2022/08/16/white-house-official-banned-from-publishing-in-pnas-following-retraction/
    44. “ Leading marine ecologist, now White House official, violated prominent journal’s policies in handling now-retracted paper.” Retraction Watch. January 8, 2021. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/10/08/leading-marine-ecologist-now-white-house-official-violated-prominent-journals-policies-in-handling-now-retracted-paper/ 
    45. Hauser, Christine. “Science Academy Pushes to Eject Sexual Harassers.” New York Times. May 2, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/science/national-academy-sciences-sexual-harassment.html.
    46. “Leadership.” National Academy of Sciences. Accessed April 28, 2026. https://www.nasonline.org/about-the-nas/leadership/.
    47. “Marcia McNutt Reelected President of the National Academy of Sciences.” National Academy of Sciences. May 3, 2022. https://www.nasonline.org/news/marcia-mcnutt-reelected-president-of-the-national-academy-of-sciences-international-secretary-and-councilors-also-elected/.
    48. “Marcia McNutt.” Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. Internet Archive. Archived August 3, 2008. https://web.archive.org/web/20080803074041/http://www.mbari.org/staff/marcia/.
    49. “ Secretary Salazar Applauds Senate’s Confirmation of Dr. Marcia McNutt as Director of the U.S. Geological Survey.” US Department of the Interior. October 22, 2009. https://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/2009_10_22_release.
    50. Stephens, Tim. “MBARI president Marcia McNutt to be nominated as director of U.S. Geological Survey.” UC Santa Cruz. July 15, 2009. https://news.ucsc.edu/2009/07/mbari-president-marcia-mcnutt-to-be-nominated-as-director-of-u-s-geological-survey/.
    51. “Marcia McNutt.” Encyclopedia Brittanica. Accessed April 28, 2026. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marcia-McNutt.
    52. National Academy of Sciences. “Neil H. Shubin Elected To Be Next National Academy of Sciences President.” February 4, 2026. https://www.nasonline.org/news/2026_president_and_council_election/.
    53. University of Chicago News. “Neil Shubin nominated as next president of National Academy of Sciences.” December 10, 2025. https://news.uchicago.edu/story/neil-shubin-nominated-next-president-national-academy-sciences.
    54. National Academy of Sciences. Report of the Treasurer: For the Year Ended December 31, 2023. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/27783/chapter/2.
    55. “Winding down Ford fellowships at the National Academies.” Ford Foundation. Accessed April 28, 2026. https://www.fordfoundation.org/news-and-stories/stories/winding-down-ford-fellowships-at-the-national-academies/.
    56. “NAS Prize in Food and Agriculture Sciences.” Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research. Accessed April 28, 2026. https://foundationfar.org/what-we-do/research-priorities/scientific-workforce/nas-prize-in-food-and-agriculture-science/.
    57. “Frontiers in the Nutrition Sciences.” National Academies Press / NIH NCBI Bookshelf. Accessed April 28, 2026. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235293/
    58. “National Academy of Sciences.” MacArthur Foundation. Accessed April 28, 2026. https://www.macfound.org/grantee/national-academy-of-sciences-320/
    59. Erspamer, Daniel. “Louisiana’s Energy Future: Who’s Really Calling the Shots?” The Center Square. March 2026. https://www.thecentersquare.com/opinion/article_0b19866c-50af-456e-befd-f12098981dcc.html.
    60. Pelican Institute for Public Policy. “Pelican Institute Releases New Report Exposing $115 Million in Outside Funding and Outdated Policies Blocking Louisiana Energy Dominance.” March 13, 2026. https://pelicanpolicy.org/press-release/barriers-to-louisiana-energy-dominance/.
    61. Mervis, Jeffrey. “Can a smaller U.S. National Academies remain relevant?” Science. November 21, 2025. https://www.science.org/content/article/can-smaller-u-s-national-academies-remain-relevant.
    62. “NAS President Says U.S. Science Is Facing ‘Pessimistic’ Future.” National Academies. June 9, 2025. https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/nas-president-says-u-s-science-is-facing-pessimistic-future-urges-changes-to-regain-leadership-in-science.
    63. Mallon, Elaine. “Watchdog targets taxpayer-funded National Academies over DEI, climate and transgender spending.” New York Post. March 30, 2026. https://nypost.com/2026/03/30/us-news/watchdog-targets-taxpayer-funded-national-academies-over-dei-climate-and-transgender-spending/#:~:text=US%20News-,Watchdog%20targets%20taxpayer%2Dfunded%20National%20Academies%20over%20DEI%2C%20climate%20and,initiatives%2C%20policing%20and%20climate%20advocacy.