LCSSP Workshop | The Dismantling of the Regulatory State

Regulation always introduces both costs and benefits to a system. In theory, we know both sides of the equation are conferred on a societal level. In practice, certain people within the system are more likely to encounter the inconveniences associated with paying those costs. Scientific researchers working in both academic and commercial settings are a prime example of people whose day-to-day activities are constrained by government protocols. This is particularly the case in fields where the pace of technological change has dramatically accelerated in recent decades, including biotech and AI. Unsurprisingly, many scientists working in these disciplines have aligned themselves with policy narratives that frame regulation as an impediment to innovation.

But until quite recently, scientists' criticisms of regulation were always grounded in an assumption that some level of government oversight would always remain. The debate, in other words, occurred on the margins. However, in the summer of 2024, the Supreme Court's momentous decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine set the stage for a systematic "deconstruction of the administrative state," which began in earnest within a month of President Trump's inauguration. The extent of deregulation that has taken place in the U.S. over the last year is not only unprecedented - it represents a scenario that few in the mainstream scientific community have ever really countenanced.

Amid the dismantling of the administrative state, how should the scientific community thinks about its prospects? In some instances, the federal push for deregulation could open up new opportunities for scientific advancement as well as consideration of new models of governance. Elsewhere, the sweeping reforms may trigger a degree of uncertainty that proves paralyzing for stakeholders tasked with evaluating the risks of new research proposals or product ideas. And in further cases still, the current administration's policies may change very little in practical terms due to the resilience of other norms and institutions. Adding to this complexity, the consequences of deregulation will likely vary across both scientific disciplines and jurisdictions.

By convening perspectives from academia, law, policy, and industry, "The Dismantling of the Regulatory State: Opportunities, Obstacles & Unknowns for Science" will explore what the community might make of the federal government's campaign to "unleash prosperity." Two topics provide an essential foundation for this discussion: (1) reviewing significant examples of how federal agency regulations once shaped science and technology and (2) examining how legislative and judicial activities taken in the post-Loper Bright period compare to the prior rules. Additional conversations may focus on: assessing the significance of state and local policies amid federal deregulation, devising alternative forms of governance to support responsible and ethical science, highlighting the implications deregulation may have for issues of public health and safety, and understanding relevant findings from contemporary regulatory science research, among others.