Abstract:W the federal government began to dominate funding of U.S. scientific research after World War II, critics from professors to President Eisenhower warned of possible adverse consequences to academic freedom and scientific progress. Their concerns have at least partly been realized in today’s dangerously formulaic top-down funding paradigm: (1) await a solicitation promulgated by a federal agency, often with the voluntary input of external scientists; (2) compile a proposal and wait approximately six months for funding decision; (3) collect data, typically over several years, keeping results proprietary to protect intellectual property and other academic rewards; (4) disseminate knowledge via conferences and peer-review publications, with direct benefit to the public as a desired, but rarely realized, afterthought (Figure 1). At best, the public is told about the results upon completion of this cycle and rarely participates. In the case of the Flint, Michigan disaster, if we had been constrained to this top-down research model, injustices of childhood lead poisoning, vital infrastructure damage and one of the largest Legionnaires’ disease outbreaks in U.S. history may never have been brought to light. Unless academics exercise their academic freedom and occasionally break the rules that implicitly govern conduct of research, practically important and societally relevant problems such as decaying vital infrastructure and environmental injustice will continue to remain out of sight and out of mind. To help expose what is arguably one of the most shocking environmental crimes ever perpetrated by government agencies, it was necessary for us to upend the top-down academic model with a bottom-up approach (Figure 1). Our alternative model overturned the current paradigm by first listening to the public to understand the problem, then volunteering scientific expertise, time and our financial resources toward research needed to expose the problem. This created a public demand to find solutions as expediently as possible. To date, the Flint disaster recovery effort has amounted to nearly a half billion dollars, including $232 million from the State of Michigan, $125 million in foundation grants, and $80 million in U.S. Federal Emergency Funds. Other broader impacts include countless hours of science-based media coverage, and a national conversation on government accountability, societal priorities, ethics, and decaying water infrastructure. Flint reminds us to open our eyes to injustice and our ears to the voices of the public, and to be cognizant of limitations of our top-down funding model. An inherently unbiased funding source does not exist, and we must be prepared to exercise our academic freedom to advance the science needed to address

Science in a shifting policy system

The Overturning of Chevron Deference: Implications for the US Healthcare System

US Supreme Court Limits on the Power of US Health Agencies

Implications for Public Health Regulation if Chevron Deference Is Overturned

Why we need a body to oversee how science is used by governments

'Vindicated': Embattled misinformation researchers celebrate key US Supreme Court decision

An Improved 21st Century Judicial System with Environmental Science Expertise is Needed for Resolving Interstate Water Conflicts

Reproductive Rights and Ecofeminism

Chevron's Sliding Scale in Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009)

Major Questions Doctrine Jujitsu: Using The Doctrine To Rein In District Court Judges

Has the Supreme Court become just another political branch? Public perceptions of court approval and legitimacy in a post- Dobbs world

Setting Boundaries Between Crime and Rights

Politics v. science: How President Trump's war on science impacted public health and environmental regulation

Calibrating Chevron for Preemption

A plea for caution: violent video games, the Supreme Court, and the role of science

When does science persuade (or not persuade) in high‐conflict policy contexts?

A landmark environmental law looks ahead

The Flint Water Crisis: Overturning the Research Paradigm to Advance Science and Defend Public Welfare.

Scientific Basis, Peer Review, and Judicial Review

Diversity in Plastic Surgery and the 2023 US Supreme Court Decision

Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy?