On July 1, Neil Shubin, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois, began his five-year term as president of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a nonprofit society of elected scholars. Shubin is best known for discovering a fossil (Tiktaalik rosae) that represents a “missing link” between marine and terrestrial vertebrates, and is the author of many popular science books. She replaces geophysicist Marcia McNutt in the prominent role of academy president.

Trust in science

Shubin will have to navigate turmoil at the NAS, which has faced substantial cuts and political pressure under U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration. Last year saw contract cancellations and layoffs for the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS, and Republican lawmakers accused the academy of demonstrating partisan bias in its research methods. In response, NAS members called for strong leadership.

As you take the helm, Nature asked Shubin about his goals as president, the issues facing the NAS today and how he plans to defend science.

What attracted you to the position?

This is a momentous moment for science in the United States. And it is a transcendental moment for international science, for social, political and geopolitical reasons. Many of the decisions we make could have lasting impacts.

What aspects of your research experience will inform your approach?

I did risky, long-term science. We made a bet looking for fossils and working with DNA. We also develop collaborations, some of them international, to achieve our objectives.

Importantly, my research also took me in two other directions. The first is that it is very multidisciplinary: it covers molecular biology, paleontology, geology, biomechanics and physiology. That interdisciplinarity gave me an idea of ​​the importance of collaboration and the application of ideas and methodologies from one field to another.

Second, my science led me toward outreach: speaking to the general public and students. That made me appreciate how many wonderful opportunities there are to communicate our science.

Science could solve some of the world’s biggest problems. Why don’t governments use it?

What immediate objectives do you have?

The NAS has existed since 1863. It was founded four months before the Battle of Gettysburg, at one of the most crucial moments in the history of our democracy. And we were founded as scientific advisors to the nation.

We have a huge amount of content, which I think we need to connect with the general public. We have a magazine that produces thousands of articles a year and we produce hundreds of reports a year. We need to show the power of scientific advice and why it is so important in a functioning democracy.

We have to try new means. We have to try to disseminate it. We have to work with local communities. We have over 2,500 members across the United States and hundreds more around the world. They are some of our best ambassadors for science, and our goal is to connect them with their local communities in ways that support their missions and ours.

And in the longer term?

We are truly at a turning point in the way science is done and in the relationship of science with governments, industry and universities. I would like to put the NAS at the center of conversations about what the scientific ecosystem should look like, to promote discovery and innovation in the years to come.

One thing the NAS can do is foster a multi-sector conversation that brings together all players so we can think about the best career paths, funding strategies, and relationships between industry and basic science.

How can the NAS move forward after a turbulent year?

A lot of this is spreading our message. And part of that is fundraising to support our mission. I firmly believe in the power of evidence-based thinking in a functioning democracy. The more we can communicate our message, the more support we can find for the work we do. It is essential for us to not only make our work more accessible, but also to be much more agile in the work we do.

Historically, the NAS has conducted consensus studies, which are the gold standard for nonpartisan, evidence-based advice. They can take between 18 months and two years. That’s a lot of news cycles. I think we have to be quicker in our advice.

White House proposes sweeping reform of US science funding: what you need to know

How will you address political agendas?

We are by design a non-partisan organization. This means that we are not a Republican, progressive or conservative organization; we are scientists. My job is to focus on science. Whether this brings us into a difficult partisan position or not, I cannot consider.