cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/57064739
The survey of nearly 1,000 researchers supported by the National Institutes of Health, the nation’s leading funder of biomedical research, paints a concerning portrait of the state of American science. More than a quarter of respondents have laid off lab members, and more than 2 out of every 5 have canceled planned research. Two-thirds have counseled students to consider careers outside the ivory tower.
Strikingly, despite courts reversing some grant terminations and Congress thwarting plans to slash the NIH budget, just 35% of respondents whose grants were cut or delayed said their government funding had been fully restored by the end of 2025.
Labs aren’t just shrinking. In some cases, they’re on track to shut down permanently, with early-career researchers among the hardest hit. A staggering 81% of junior tenure-track scientists said they are very or somewhat concerned that disruptions to their research productivity could threaten their chances of earning tenure.
In follow-up interviews, survey respondents told STAT that interrupted funding and changes in federal priorities caused patients to drop out of a diabetes prevention trial in Puerto Rico, forced an Ohio researcher on the cusp of losing her position to close her lab, and led one scientist to take a 95% pay cut in a last-ditch bid to avoid laying off staff.
STAT interviewed 30 respondents, not all of whom have been severely impacted. But many said they were enraged and disillusioned that the federal government, historically science’s largest and most reliable partner, had blindsided researchers with an array of funding cuts and delays. Several warned that the full scope of last year’s policy changes — measured in discoveries that aren’t made, at least not in the United States — won’t be visible for years. As they spoke, a couple of researchers wept.
“This is like the Titanic hitting the iceberg,” said Steve Shoptaw, who runs the Center for Behavioral and Addiction Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, which has shrunk by 40% due to funding cuts. “People are still eating at the table, music’s still playing, and yet the ship is sinking.”
$omehow this flew under most people's radar when Trump took office the first time around, so here's a helpful reminder:
2016: Peter Thiel said to be playing key role in filling health, science posts under Trump. https://archive.is/2023.08.31-231401/https://www.statnews.com/2016/12/20/peter-thiel-donald-trump-science/
And if you're thinking something along the lines of "so what, doesn't mean he actually ended up having that much influence," I would suggest you look into Trump's current Science Advisor who the press realized, (also almost a decade ago), holds no science credentials.
A Peter Thiel Protégé Is Leading Trump’s AI Strategy Against China
Trump’s pick for science adviser is a rarity among his nominees — he’s not controversial
For $some reason, in 2025, the press had no questions about Kratsios ability to steer American science towards greatness 🙃 Considering how great he did in his defacto role the first time around, I would argue he should have been considered an extremely controversial pick;
In March of 2020, Kratsios was tasked by Trump to use cutting edge technology to tackle COVID misinformation and track early cases of the virus in the U.S. in order to keep it from spreading.
....🙃