Year 2, Week 11
Mar 7-13, 2026 - recalibrating
Hello friends,
I’m on the road this week and just finished leading a workshop, so I have just the briefest of recaps for you this week.
This was Year 2, Week 11.
First, some follow-ups items:
Schedule F1 was implemented this week. The administration can now strip due process and appeal rights from tens of thousands of federal workers, including those involved in grantmaking. Inside Higher Ed has an explainer of the changes.
Measles:2 KFF news has a sobering piece on long-term complications called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis. The lethal, untreatable neurodegenerative condition shows up years later, and occurs in roughly 1 in every 600 babies infected with measles.
ACIP vaccine recommendations:3 more than half of all American states no longer rely on the CDC’s advisory committee. As of March 10, twenty-nine states are finding their guidance elsewhere.
What else I’m paying attention to:
That new polling data from the Annenberg Survey of Attitudes on Public Health that should inform our conversations about trust in science. The survey data were collected in mid February and focused on confidence that various actors are “providing the public with trustworthy information about matters concerning public health.” A few toplines that I think are worth mentioning.4 Yes, there has been a year-over-year decline in confidence in CDC, FDA, and NIH: 2024 (75%) , 2025 (67%), 2026 (61%). But career scientists are rated substantially higher (67%) than health agency leaders (43%).5 Some of the most striking numbers, to me, are how much confidence people have in the American Heart Association, American Association of Pediatricians, and American Medical Association. In a question specifically asking people about conflicting advice about newborn HepB vaccine safety, people say they would follow AAP guidance over CDC by a margin of four to one(!)
Some perspectives from NIH insiders worth sitting down and reading: one essay from administrators and scientists who resigned in protest, another essay making the case for vocal and principled action from someone who stayed, and a comment on why presidential control is bad for scientific innovation.6
And what’s next
I spent some time this week walking and listening to a Stanford Law podcast where Kim Scheppelle breaks down how modern autocracies take hold legal and constitutional maneuvering that leave the facade of democracy in place. I think it pairs really well with this piece in The Conversation, on how the threats to universities are shifting into more insidious forms. It is harder to follow and write about procedural moves, and I’ve been worrying about how to make these issues salient.
But first, at least for me, I need some sleep: tomorrow’s early flight will be here too soon. May our paths feel clearer in the morning.
Liz
As ever, thanks for reading & thinking with me. Meeting the Moment will always be free, but if you want to contribute, you can ⤵️
set up a subscriptionIf this email was forwarded to you, hi! 👋 Every Friday night, I write a briefing on the week’s news that feel most important to those of us who care about science and higher education. If you like what you see ⤵️
you can get this delivered weeklyNow called “Schedule Policy/Career” that reclassifies the employment conditions of tens, potentially hundreds, of thousands of federal employees. I first wrote about this in Week 13 ↩
I first wrote about worrying outbreaks in this newsletter in Week 4 ↩
I first wrote about the was ACIP was hollowed out in Week 21 ↩
Please see this PDF for full data & precise question wording ↩
And confidence in Fauci (53%) is higher than Oz (42%) or RFK Jr (38%) ↩
They wrote a longer piece at SSRN if you want to get into some ideas about how to remedy the problem. ↩
