NASA is making a push to rebuild in-house expertise, an initiative met with cautious support from Evans. Evans believes it would improve oversight and safety, but he questions whether budget uncertainty and recent workforce instability will undermine the agency’s ability to recruit and sustain the talent needed to make it work.
The first human moon mission in over 50 years is likely to launch this week, with the Artemis II rocket and crew in place at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Today marks the official opening of the mission's launch window, as earlier attempts were scratched due to technical issues.
“What we've heard from NASA is that they're all good to go, barring the weather,” said Kenny Evans, a fellow in science, technology and innovation policy at Rice University. “So, they seem optimistic, which makes me optimistic. I think they've solved their technical challenges on the ground in the interim.”
US President Donald Trump has named 13 people to his panel of science advisers -- and all but one is a technology executive. The panel's lack of research prowess has drawn some criticism, citing the nation's need to be prepared for the oncoming biotechnology age. Evans notes that the panel's balance, or lack thereof, could change as Trump can name up to 11 more individuals to the committee.
The recent, new delay of Artemis II represents the latest in a string of challenges currently plaguing NASA. Evans and other experts commented on the public perception resulting from the latest hindrance of the planned mission.
Uncertainty and cuts in the National Institutes of Health's research funding under the Trump administration have prompted states to consider their own science funding initiatives. Many universities are struggling with delayed or reduced federal grants, and are debating new funding efforts to support biomedical research.
Evans said that rhetoric promoting non-federal sources of research funding is popular in the current administration and conservative policy circles. He warned that this narrative — emphasizing funding from philanthropy or state budgets — could weaken the federal role in science, even though federal funding remains crucial.