Concerns Grow Over White House Control of Science Funding, Researchers Fear Impact
The Trump administration's increasing influence over federal science funding has raised alarms among researchers, particularly with efforts to review and potentially block grants that include diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) language. Many scientists fear this new scrutiny will hinder groundbreaking research and compromise America's scientific edge.
Tightening Control Over Federal Research
Darby Saxbe, a neuroendocrinologist at the University of Southern California, is among the growing number of scientists worried about the future of their research. Saxbe, who studies brain changes in fathers, has been using a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to include more diverse participants in her work. However, terms like “diverse” and “underrepresented” now face heightened scrutiny under the Trump administration’s executive orders aimed at curbing DEI efforts. This shift marks a stark departure from decades of science funding that aimed to boost minority participation.
The scrutiny extends beyond language, as the administration appears to exert increasing influence over which research gets funded. Critics argue this could stifle scientific progress, shifting focus away from merit-based research in favor of ideological alignment. Neal Lane, former NSF director, calls this "totally unprecedented," warning that it could "kill American science."
A Shift in Research Priorities
Since the 1990s, Congress has mandated that NSF consider how its grants promote the participation of women and minorities in science, ensuring that the research community reflects the diversity of the nation. However, the Trump administration’s stance directly contradicts this, with officials claiming that DEI factors detract from objective scientific inquiry. According to Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, NSF funding should focus on scientific merit rather than promoting social agendas.
Some experts, including Suzanne Barbour from Duke University, counter that diverse teams lead to more creative and successful research. They argue that a variety of voices and experiences fosters innovation and leads to better outcomes for society. Yet, under the new directives, NSF has begun flagging proposals that reference DEI, halting some grants while the review process continues.
Federal Funding at Risk
In addition to scrutinizing DEI-related grants, the Trump administration is reportedly planning significant budget cuts to the NSF, potentially slashing its $9 billion budget by as much as two-thirds. This could have disastrous consequences for research across multiple disciplines, including critical areas like artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and healthcare. A reduction in funding would also shrink the pool of skilled scientists, weakening the country’s technological leadership.
Experts are concerned that without adequate federal support, academic research in the U.S. will falter. Elizabeth Popp Berman, a sociologist, warns that a broader definition of DEI could decimate entire fields, including economics, sociology, and psychology.
The Cultural Impact on Science
The Trump administration’s moves are creating a climate of fear within the scientific community. Researchers are increasingly worried about political interference in their work, potentially stifling innovation and collaboration. Diana Macias, an ecologist at UC Berkeley, notes that the heightened scrutiny could discourage collaboration and reduce the competitiveness of U.S. science.
For many, the possibility of grants being rescinded for political reasons is deeply troubling, especially considering the rigor of the NSF’s grant application process. Saxbe, who trains graduate students in her field, is particularly concerned about the message these actions send to the next generation of scientists.
The Long-Term Consequences
If these changes continue, the U.S. may see a reduction in the number of scientists pursuing fundamental research in areas like AI and cybersecurity. Federal funding, which supports almost 80% of basic computing research, is crucial for pushing the boundaries of knowledge. Without it, U.S. scientific leadership could weaken, undermining the nation's competitive advantage in crucial sectors.
Former NSF director Neal Lane sums up the situation: "If you take away federal support for science, science is dead in the United States." With ongoing scrutiny, researchers worry that American science could face its greatest challenge in decades.
Get further information here ...
