The National Academy of Sciences has been forced to remove a long-disputed climate-science chapter from an influential judicial reference manual, but critics say its own internal process review is not enough to repair the damage done by the 183-year-old institution which was founded by President Abraham Lincoln.

The disputed climate-science chapter appeared in the 2025 fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, produced by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) with the Federal Judicial Center (FJC). The manual was intended to “help” federal judges evaluate complex scientific and technical evidence presented in court.

But the FJC had to remove the chapter after Republican attorneys general, lawmakers, and legal experts found contributions penned by contributors locked in litigation against energy companies. The conflict of interest was never declared, and NASEM even initially kept the material online before reversing course on August 7.

“The NAS has determined that questions about the processes used to develop the chapter warrant an independent review, and the chapter will not appear on our website while that review is underway,” the organization recently announced.

But to date, NASEM has not publicly identified who will conduct the review, disclosed its full scope, or even established a timetable for completion. The organization also admitted that the inquiry concerns its procedures rather than the underlying validity of climate science.

Critics are now arguing that this distinction protects the chapter’s conclusions before the investigation has even begun, rendering this internal review pointless. They contend that a review controlled or commissioned by the institution responsible for publishing the material cannot credibly determine whether the process was compromised.

The controversy centers on Michael Burger, executive director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and an of-counsel attorney at Sher Edling. The law firm represents state and local governments seeking damages from energy companies over alleged climate-related harms.

Sher Edling’s own biography of Burger states that he helps public agencies pursue fossil-fuel companies and has submitted briefs in climate cases. The firm has also undertaken climate litigation through contingency-fee arrangements, giving it a direct financial interest in successful claims against energy producers.

An April Oversight Project investigation used the iThenticate research-integrity service to compare the judicial chapter with previously published work. It reported a 33% overall similarity score, including a 23% match with a 2020 climate-attribution paper coauthored by Burger and the chapter’s two listed authors, Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton.

The chapter also acknowledged Burger only for providing “insights and helpful feedback.” The Oversight Project has argued that the scale of the textual overlap indicates a substantially greater contribution than that description suggests.

The dispute, therefore, extends far beyond competing interpretations of climate science. Material designed to guide federal judges on questions of attribution, causation, and damages drew heavily upon work involving an attorney connected to plaintiffs litigating those same questions.

Critics are now calling for the chapter’s permanent removal, the release of records concerning its drafting and review, and an outside examination of every participant’s legal, financial, and institutional interests. They also argue that the controversy is not confined to one chapter.

NASEM’s recently published report on extreme-weather attribution has also faced congressional scrutiny over possible conflicts involving committee members and organizations supporting climate-accountability litigation. House Science Committee leaders requested information about the committee’s composition, disclosure rules, closed meetings, and safeguards against outside influence.

There now looks to be a broader institutional problem, requiring scrutiny of NASEM’s climate-related committees, publications, reviewers, and conflict-of-interest procedures, rather than a narrow review of the one judicial chapter.

Federal funding has also now entered the dispute, with The Oversight Project reporting that federal sources account for a substantial share of NASEM’s budget. They’re urging Congress to reconsider taxpayer support for institutions producing material that could impede President Donald J. Trump’s energy-dominance agenda.

Until the reviewers, evidence, and standards are fully disclosed, the process will remain vulnerable to the charge that it is intended to preserve NASEM’s credibility and federal funding rather than establish how litigation interests gained influence over supposedly impartial judicial guidance.