Good Science Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
934384559
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Roswell, GA, USA
Phone
2818985331
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,020,243
Expenses
$710,291
Assets
$555,598
Liabilities
$6,187

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jeremy Stuart Buck (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jeremy Stuart Buck (Executive Director): $285,423 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Good Science Project is dedicated to improving scientific progress via education, research, publications, and public advocacy as to effective science policy and funding.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, Stuart Buck published dozens of newsletters that are widely read in the science policy community. Additionally, he published "Let Unfunded Grant Applications See the Light of Day," Issues in Science and Technology (Spring 2025), available at https://issues.org/unfunded-grant-applications-open-science-buck-marcum/, and "Science Under Threat in the United States," eLife (Mar. 27, 2025), available at https://elifesciences.org/articles/106819. He also published "Reforming NIH: A blueprint for 21st-century medical research," STAT News (2025), available at https://www.statnews.com/2025/09/08/nih-reform-budget-cuts-trump-administration-rfk-jr/. "The State of American Science Funding (For the Next Five Minutes)," Asterisk Magazine (2025), available at https://asteriskmag.com/issues/11/the-state-of-american-science-funding-for-the-next-five-minutes. "The Case for Crazy Philanthropy," Palladium Magazine (2025), available at https://www.palladiummag.com/2025/08/22/the-case-for-crazy-philanthropy/. With Ben Reinhardt, "The Paradox of Harmful Information: Risk and progress in the sciences," Arena (2025), available at https://arenamag.com/articles/the-paradox-of-harmful-information.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 54
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.2%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 86.5%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.4%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.78; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 40.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 68.9% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 44.3% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 70.1% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.2% of revenue deployed · 86.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $614K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $285K · 4 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 42 of 42 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.