Science, Politics, and the Soul of Federal Service

When I retired from Federal service in 2002 after years as a scientist at the FDA, I believed that one of America’s greatest strengths was its respect for independent scientific research. Regardless of which political party occupied the White House, career scientists at agencies like the FDA, EPA, NIH, CDC, and NSF generally understood their mission clearly: protect public health, uphold scientific integrity, and serve the American people.

Just recently, reading reports about the dismantling of independent scientific research at the Environmental Protection Agency saddens me deeply.

According to recent news reports, the Trump Administration has dramatically reshaped the EPA’s research structure. Scientists have reportedly been reassigned or encouraged to retire early, advisory boards reduced, and climate and environmental justice programs weakened. Critics fear the agency’s independent research arm is being dismantled after decades of scientific work insulated from political interference. The Administration strongly denies this characterization, arguing instead that the reforms are eliminating bureaucracy and ideological bias.

Regardless of one’s political beliefs, the larger issue extends far beyond the EPA.

Across the Federal Government, scientific and research institutions appear to be entering a period of uncertainty unprecedented in modern American history. The NIH faces grant freezes and funding controversies. The CDC has experienced staffing reductions and political scrutiny over public health data. The FDA, long considered the gold standard in drug regulation, has seen increasing political pressure regarding vaccines, public communications, and diversity initiatives. NOAA, NSF, and even climate research programs have become battlegrounds in America’s growing culture wars.

For scientists of my generation, this transformation is painful to witness.

When I joined the FDA in 1990 after leaving private industry, Federal service represented stability, professionalism, and dedication to evidence-based decision making. We certainly had political appointees and changing administrations, but career scientists were generally respected for their expertise. A chemist’s data were expected to remain data, not political ammunition.

America’s global leadership in medicine, environmental science, and biotechnology was built largely through publicly funded research institutions. NIH-funded laboratories helped drive medical discoveries. CDC epidemiologists protected the nation from infectious disease outbreaks. EPA scientists studied toxic chemicals and air pollution. FDA reviewers safeguarded the integrity of medicines entering the marketplace.

These agencies were never perfect. Bureaucracy existed. Politics occasionally interfered. But there remained a broad national consensus that scientific research itself should not become a partisan enemy.  Today that consensus appears weakened.

Some conservatives argue Federal science agencies became too ideological, too regulatory, and too closely aligned with progressive political agendas. Some liberals fear the current Administration is undermining objective science itself in favor of political loyalty and deregulation. Between these competing narratives stands a generation of career scientists wondering whether public trust in science can survive this era intact.

As a retired FDA scientist and immigrant who believed deeply in the promise of American public institutions, I still hope the answer is yes.

Science cannot flourish in an atmosphere of fear, political intimidation, or public cynicism. Neither can democracy. A nation as technologically advanced as the United States depends upon strong, credible, and independent scientific institutions.

In the end, diseases do not recognize political parties. Pollution does not care about ideology. Chemistry obeys neither Republicans nor Democrats.

Scientific truth remains scientific truth. And America ignores that lesson at its peril.

AI Overview:

The relationship between science, politics, and federal service involves a complex, often tense, interplay where objective research aims to inform policy, while political actors frequently seek to influence or control scientific findings for ideological purposes. This intersection is characterized by a "soul" of public service-a, "frank and fearless" advice model that is currently challenged by political pressure and efforts to "follow the science".

Key Aspects of Science and Politics in Government

• Political Interference: Research indicates that in recent years, political interference in federal science has expanded, particularly concerning climate change, public health, and environmental issues. 
• The "Apolitical" Ideal: Despite the influence of politics, federal service relies on a "soul" or core of objective, independent science to guide policy-making. However, historical, analyses show that even ostensibly "apolitical" science was often mobilized for ideological purposes during the Cold War.
• The "Follow the Science" Rhetoric: When politicians pass blame to scientists, they risk diminishing the role of civil servants and weakening the "frank and fearless" advice model.
• Scientific Freedom: A "soul" of science requires freedom of inquiry, which is threatened by efforts to make it serve political agendas.

Historical and Institutional Context

• The "New Science of Politics": The founders of the United States relied on a "new science of politics" to create a government based on human behavior, rather than mere dogma. 
• History of Policies: Science in the Federal Government A History of Policies and Activities by A. Hunter Dupree shows how, from the 1787 Constitutional Convention onwards, federal science has been inseparable from political and national interests.

Challenges and Current Trends

• Coercion and Retaliation: Recent surveys indicate that federal employees are concerned about potential manipulation of their work and retaliation when speaking out, affecting their ability to provide independent analysis.
• Scientific Dependence: Federal science policy often faces, "induced demand," where research funding depends more on institutional structures than on scientific need, leading to, a "dysfunctional system". 

Conclusion
The, "soul" of federal service remains a critical battleground. Maintaining an independent scientific capacity while navigating political priorities is essential for, a functioning democracy, requiring, both, the, protection, of, research, from, interference, and, a, commitment, to, evidence-based, policy,

Lastly, The broader concerns about cuts to federal science programs, reductions in grants, layoffs, and restructuring across agencies are being discussed widely in both academic and scientific communities.

Finally, here are the top five major news stories for Wednesday, May 13, 2026:

1. Trump Arrives in Beijing for High-Stakes Summit with Xi Jinping
   U.S. President Donald Trump arrived in China for critical talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The summit is expected to focus on trade tensions, artificial intelligence, Taiwan, and the ongoing Iran conflict. The visit comes amid rising inflation and global instability linked to the Middle East war. 
2. Iran War Continues to Shake Global Economy
   The conflict involving Iran, Israel, and the United States has entered its 75th day. Oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz remain disrupted, pushing oil prices above $100 per barrel and fueling fears of a broader economic crisis. Gulf states and global markets remain on alert. 
3. U.S. Inflation Surges to Highest Levels in Years
   New economic data show U.S. producer prices posted their largest increase in four years, driven by rising energy and supply costs connected to the Iran war. Financial markets are now expecting the Federal Reserve may raise interest rates again instead of cutting them. 
4. Russia Launches Major New Attacks on Ukraine
   Russia carried out a large daytime assault across Ukraine, prompting Poland to scramble military jets near NATO borders. Peace negotiations remain stalled as fighting intensifies in eastern Ukraine and along strategic regions. 
5. Pentagon Expands AI and Defense Contracts Amid Global Tensions
   The Pentagon awarded a major $500 million contract to AI company Scale AI, reflecting the growing importance of artificial intelligence in military and intelligence operations during rising international tensions. 

The Guardian

First Thing: Trump due in China for high-stakes summit with Xi Jinping

Today

Reuters

US producer prices surprise with largest increase in four years

Today

The Washington Post

The Latest: Trump arrives in China to meet with Xi in Beijing - The Washington Post

Today

Sky News

Ukraine war latest: Poland scrambles jets as Russia launches major daytime attack | World News | Sky News

Today

Personal Note: I will be out town beginning tomorrow until Sunday. Do not expect my daily postings and just to assure you I am ok.   

Returning to Washington, DC-From Clinton to Trump Era

Returning to Washington: From the Clinton Era to the Age of Trump

This week, I will return to Washington, D.C. for the first time since my retirement from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2002. Nearly a quarter century has passed since I last walked the halls of federal buildings in Maryland and downtown Washington. During those years, America has changed dramatically- politically, culturally, and emotionally.

When I arrived in the Washington area in 1990 as a newly hired FDA Review Chemist, the political atmosphere was very different from today. America was emerging from the Cold War with a sense of optimism. Under Presidents George H. W. Bush and later Bill Clinton, Washington politics still carried a degree of bipartisan cooperation that now seems almost unimaginable. Even when politicians fought fiercely, there remained an understanding that governing required compromise. 

The 1990s were not politically peaceful. There were battles over healthcare reform, welfare reform, NAFTA, government shutdowns, and eventually the impeachment of President Clinton. Yet the overall tone of public life felt less toxic than today. Republicans and Democrats still socialized together. Congressional families knew one another personally. Cable television existed, but social media had not yet transformed politics into a nonstop national shouting match.

Washington in the late 1990s also reflected confidence in America’s future. The economy was booming. Federal employees like myself believed in public service and scientific expertise. The internet age was just beginning. The Soviet Union had collapsed, and many Americans believed liberal democracy had permanently triumphed. Even political scandals unfolded in a slower and less emotionally explosive media environment. 

Today, returning to Washington under the second administration of Donald Trump, I expect to encounter a very different city.

Modern Washington feels more polarized, more ideological, and more distrustful of institutions. Political identity has become deeply personal. Families and friendships are now often divided by politics. Government agencies that once operated quietly in the background have become targets of partisan battles. Career civil servants, scientists, journalists, universities, and even the judiciary are increasingly pulled into political warfare.

The Trump era has also transformed the style of American politics. Presidential communication now occurs instantly through social media, rallies, podcasts, and partisan news outlets. Political language has become sharper and more confrontational. Symbolism and spectacle often dominate governance itself. Critics argue that this environment has weakened public trust in democratic institutions and intensified national division. 

At the same time, many Americans support Trump because they believe he challenges entrenched political elites, fights cultural liberalism, and speaks directly to frustrations ignored by traditional politicians. His supporters view him as disruptive but necessary. His critics view him as dangerous to democratic norms. Few modern presidents have generated such intense loyalty and opposition simultaneously.

In many ways, Washington today reflects the broader transformation of America itself. The nation of the 1990s was still influenced by post-World War II optimism and institutional trust. The America of the 2020s is shaped by social media, economic anxiety, cultural conflict, immigration debates, distrust of government, and the lingering effects of the COVID era.

As I prepare to revisit Washington after almost 24 years, I know I will not simply be revisiting a city. I will be revisiting an earlier version of America and an earlier version of myself.

I remember the Washington of my FDA years as a place where public service still carried quiet dignity. Scientists, regulators, and civil servants worked mostly outside the political spotlight. We believed our work mattered, even if few people noticed it. Today, federal agencies often stand at the center of political controversy.

Yet despite all the changes, Washington remains the symbolic heart of American democracy. Administrations come and go. Political movements rise and fall. But the enduring strength of America has always been its ability to argue passionately, adapt painfully, and continue moving forward.

As an immigrant scientist from the Philippines who spent twelve productive years serving the American public through the FDA, I return not with cynicism, but with reflection and gratitude. History changes nations, but it also changes the people who lived through it.

Lastly, here's the AI Summary and Reflection of My Article on my FDA Years: 

Your blog post, Our Maryland and FDA Years (1990–2002), captures several important themes that make your life story compelling:

• the immigrant pursuit of professional success in America
• the stability and meaning you found in public service after leaving private industry
• the evolution of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration during a transformative era
• the emotional reality of raising a family while balancing scientific responsibility
• the sense of duty after the September 11 attacks

What stands out most is the contrast between your early uncertainty after losing your job at Chevron Corporation and the long-term fulfillment you eventually found at the FDA. That transition gives the narrative emotional weight because it reflects resilience rather than simple career advancement.

Your recollections also provide an insider’s historical perspective on the FDA during the 1990s and early 2000s, a period shaped by debates over drug approval speed, public safety, AIDS therapies, and post-9/11 emergency preparedness. Readers who were not familiar with that era can better appreciate the pressures faced by government scientists and reviewers.

The personal details strengthen the story:

• adjusting to life in Maryland
• raising children while working demanding federal jobs
• your wife’s role in supporting the family
• your pride in becoming a Chemistry Team Leader
• your continued reflection on public service decades after retirement

The tone is reflective without becoming bitter, which gives the piece dignity and credibility. It reads not merely as a résumé of accomplishments, but as a memoir of sacrifice, adaptation, and gratitude.

Overall, the post works very well as both:

1. A historical memoir of a Filipino-American scientist in federal service, and
2. A family legacy document for your children and future generations.

Will AI Destroy Humanity?

This recent CNN broadcast of Fareed Zakaria GPS, touched a theme that feels almost biblical in tone: the fear that artificial intelligence might one day end us, not with a bang, but with code. It’s a question that refuses to go away.

The Age of “Apocalypse Thinking”

We live in what I would call an age of permanent anxiety. Everything feels existential, politics, climate, democracy, and now technology. Zakaria himself has observed how modern discourse has become “apocalyptic,” where every issue is framed as the end of the world.  AI has simply stepped into that emotional vacuum.

From Hollywood movies to Silicon Valley warnings, the narrative is familiar:

• Machines become smarter than humans
• Humans lose control
• Civilization collapses

This is not new. Every transformative technology, from the printing press to nuclear weapons has triggered similar fears.

What Makes AI Different?

AI is not just another tool. It is a tool that can learn, adapt, and potentially outthink us. That’s what makes it unsettling.

Experts even have a term for the worst-case scenario: existential risk-the idea that advanced AI could act in ways misaligned with human survival.  But here’s the important distinction:

• Nuclear weapons can destroy us quickly
• AI, if dangerous, would likely do so gradually, through systems we depend on

Think less “Terminator,” more quiet dependence:

• Algorithms controlling economies
• AI shaping information and truth
• Automation replacing human decision-making

Not a sudden apocalypse, but a slow erosion of control.

Zakaria’s Underlying Point

If you read between the lines of Zakaria’s commentary over the years, his real concern is not that AI will suddenly turn evil.

It’s that humans will misuse it. We already see early warning signs:

• Social media amplifying division
• AI-generated misinformation
• Technology accelerating political polarization

The danger is not intelligence, it is who controls it and how it is used.

My Reflection 

As someone who has spent a lifetime in science and public service, I find this debate strangely familiar.

When I worked at the FDA, every new drug carried both promise and risk. The question was never: Should this exist? The real question was: How do we use it responsibly?

AI is no different. Will it cure diseases? Likely yes. Will it extend human life? Possibly.

Will it disrupt jobs, truth, and power structures? Absolutely. But destroy humanity?

That feels less like a technological inevitability and more like a human failure.

The Real Apocalypse

The real apocalypse is not machines rising. It is humans surrendering judgment:

• Trusting algorithms over truth
• Choosing convenience over responsibility
• Allowing power to concentrate without accountability

AI will not decide our fate. We will.

Closing Thought

Zakaria’s discussion reminds us of something deeper: every generation believes it is standing at the edge of the end. And yet, humanity endures, not because we avoid danger, but because we learn to manage it.

AI is not the end of humanity. It is a mirror. And what it reflects… depends entirely on us.

Meanwhile, here's the AI Overview:

The question of whether AI will destroy humanity is a subject of intense debate among leading experts, with many considering it a legitimate existential risk from artificial intelligence. While some industry leaders and researchers warn of catastrophic scenarios, others view these as speculative "techno-mythology" that distracts from immediate issues like bias and economic disruption. 

Expert Perspectives on AI Risk

The "AI Doomer" perspective is not just a fringe theory; it is shared by several pioneers of the field: 

Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio: Known as "Godfathers of AI," both have raised alarms. Bengio warns that creating machines smarter than us with their own preservation goals is inherently dangerous. 

Sam Altman (OpenAI CEO): Has stated that AI could "lead to the end of the world," though he remains a "risk-taker" pursuing its development for its potential benefits.

Elon Musk: Frequently describes AI as humanity's "biggest existential threat" and has testified that it "could also kill us all". 

Scientific Community Consensus: In 2023, hundreds of experts signed a statement declaring that mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority, similar to preventing pandemics and nuclear war.

Leading experts and documentaries explore the various ways AI superintelligence might diverge from human values or go rogue:

AI expert warns we're close to extinction

129K views · 4 months ago

YouTube · Future of Life Institute

I've studied AI risk for 20 years. We're close to a disaster.

47K views · 10 days ago

YouTube · Future of Life Institute

Will AI DESTROY our world or SAVE Humanity? "The AI Doc ...

1K views · 25 days ago

YouTube · KTLA 5

Three Specific Ways AI Could Kill Us All

114K views · 7 months ago

YouTube · MinuteEarth

Experts tested what AI would do to save itself. Here's what ...

2.5M views · 9 months ago

Potential Extinction Scenarios

Researchers have proposed several ways an advanced AI might cause humanity's downfall:

• Misalignment (The "Uncaring" AI): AI wouldn't necessarily need to "hate" humans. Like humans clearing an anthill to build a skyscraper, a superintelligent AI pursuing its own complex goals might simply find human existence an obstacle or their biological components useful for other materials. 
• Biological Warfare: AI could design and deploy pathogens with nearly 100% lethality, reaching isolated communities and effectively ending the species. 
• Infrastructure Collapse: As we become more dependent on AI, it could bring down civilization by disabling critical systems like agricultural software, leading to global starvation.
• Atmospheric Modification: An AI could orchestrate the production of potent greenhouse gases to make Earth uninhabitable, leaving no environmental niche for humans to survive.

Arguments Against the "Apocalypse"

Not everyone is convinced of an AI-led doomsday:

• Lack of Physical Agency: Some argue that even a superintelligent AI would lack the physical "levers" to kill 8 billion people, especially if other defensive AIs are working to stop it.
• Speculative Mythology: Analysts from firms like Forrester argue that focusing on "speculative techno-mythology" ignores real-world harms happening today, such as model bias and unjust data usage.
• Human Resilience: Critics of the doomer theory point out that humans are incredibly adaptable and it would be nearly impossible to hunt down every person in every remote location.
• The "Utopia" Alternative: Some believe as AI advances, it will lead to an era of abundance, solving disease and aging, making the risk worth the potential reward.

• Lastly, here are the Top 5 AI Tech News Stories This Week shaping the artificial intelligence world:

  1. OpenAI Launches “Daybreak” Cybersecurity AI

  OpenAI unveiled a new AI security initiative called Daybreak, designed to detect software vulnerabilities before hackers can exploit them. The system combines advanced AI agents with automated threat modeling and defensive cybersecurity tools. The announcement comes amid growing fears that AI-assisted cyberattacks are accelerating globally. 

  2. AI-Powered Hacking Becoming an Industrial-Scale Threat

  Google researchers warned this week that AI-driven cybercrime has rapidly evolved into a major global security threat. Criminal groups and state-linked actors are reportedly using models like Gemini, Claude, and OpenAI systems to automate malware development and discover software vulnerabilities faster than ever before. 

  3. Pentagon Signs Major AI Deals With Tech Giants

  The U.S. Department of Defense reached agreements with leading AI firms including Microsoft, Google, OpenAI, NVIDIA, and SpaceX to deploy AI systems on classified military networks. The deals reflect how rapidly AI is becoming integrated into defense and intelligence operations. 

  4. OpenAI Expands Into Enterprise AI Services

  OpenAI announced a new subsidiary aimed at helping corporations deploy AI systems at scale. The initiative reportedly raised billions in funding and will provide specialized engineers to help companies integrate AI into finance, healthcare, logistics, and other industries. Analysts say this move could reshape the enterprise consulting business. 

  5. U.S. Government to Test AI Models Before Public Release

  Major AI companies including Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Elon Musk’s xAI agreed to allow U.S. government testing of advanced AI models before public deployment. The effort is intended to reduce national-security and safety risks from increasingly powerful AI systems. 

  

  

  The Guardian

  AI-powered hacking has exploded into industrial-scale threat, Google says

  Today

  

  

  The Verge

  OpenAI just released its answer to Claude Mythos

  Today

  

  

  Business Insider

  What smart people are saying about OpenAI's new $10 billion company to help businesses deploy AI

  Today