US Scientific Enterprise Fractured by Federal Funding Disruptions

Short Wave · December 31, 2025 · Listen to Original Episode →

Original Title:

TL;DR

Disrupted federal funding for scientific pursuits, particularly at agencies like NIH and NSF, has led to thousands of layoffs and billions in canceled grants, potentially causing irreparable damage to the US scientific enterprise.
The termination of research grants, sometimes due to vague DEI mentions, has demoralized and led to the departure of experienced scientists, creating a "soul-crushing" environment and questioning long-term career sustainability.
Uncertainty in federal science funding impacts the next generation by diminishing inspiration and motivation for STEM careers, potentially causing a loss of talent that could permanently affect the US's scientific leadership.
Administration officials argue that NIH funding disruptions are necessary to "reinvigorate" the agency and fund more innovative, less risk-averse science, aiming to translate research into better public health outcomes.
Scientists express grave concerns that the US's historical commitment to science, a "grand bargain" that fostered innovation, has been fractured, leading some promising young researchers to consider leaving the country for more stable environments.

Deep Dive

The United States' commitment to scientific advancement, historically a cornerstone of national prosperity and global leadership, has been significantly undermined by disruptions to federal funding in 2025. This erosion of support risks irreparable damage to the nation's scientific enterprise, potentially leading to a decline in innovation, a loss of future scientific talent, and a diminished capacity to address critical global challenges.

The disruption in federal funding has created widespread chaos across scientific institutions, most notably at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world's largest public funder of biomedical science. Thousands of NIH staff have been laid off, and billions of dollars in research grants have been terminated or thrown into disarray. This has led to demoralization among remaining staff, with some experiencing "drone attacks" of research terminations based on vague criteria like diversity and inclusion, prompting experienced grant managers to leave after years of service. The NIH director acknowledges morale issues but claims to be revitalizing the agency by funding more innovative and less risk-averse projects, arguing that previous approaches have not translated into better public health outcomes. However, many scientists, including former NIH director Dr. Francis Collins, view these changes as "moving fast and breaking things" without adequate consideration for consequences, calling the situation "heartbreaking."

Beyond the NIH, other federal agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF), NOAA, and NASA have also experienced significant disruptions, including the cancellation of over 1,500 NSF grants, representing over $1 billion in lost funding. This instability extends to the Department of Veterans Affairs, where major research projects are in limbo. The administration's stated rationale is a need to "shake up" these institutions and fund more innovative science, with officials arguing that federal health agencies have failed to improve American longevity. Yet, the broader scientific community, particularly younger researchers, expresses deep concern about the lasting impact. Astrophysicist Fran Bagenal notes that a lack of government prioritization in science, such as with NASA's Juno mission, can demotivate the next generation of scientists.

The most critical second-order implication is the potential loss of future scientific talent. Young scientists like electrical engineer Brandon Coventry, whose NIH-funded research on brain-computer interfaces could aid Parkinson's and epilepsy patients, are experiencing funding revocations at pivotal career stages. This uncertainty is leading researchers like Coventry to consider leaving the U.S. for countries like Canada, where they perceive greater stability and support for scientific careers. This represents a significant brain drain, as these individuals are driven by a calling to improve the world and will pursue that mission where they can best do so. Even if funding is restored, rebuilding trust in the U.S. as a sustainable place for science will be a long and arduous process.

In essence, the dismantling of consistent, long-term federal support for science threatens to fracture the "grand bargain" that established the U.S. as a scientific powerhouse. This could lead to a permanent decline in American innovation and global leadership, a consequence that extends far beyond immediate budget lines and impacts the nation's future prosperity and security.

Action Items

Audit federal science funding: Identify 3-5 agencies with significant funding disruptions and analyze the impact on research pipelines (ref: NIH, NSF, NOAA, NASA).
Create a framework: Define criteria for evaluating the long-term impact of policy changes on scientific innovation and talent retention (ref: future of science, next generation).
Track grant cancellations: Monitor the number and value of canceled federal research grants across 3-5 key agencies to assess systemic disruption (ref: NSF, NIH).
Measure talent pipeline impact: For 3-5 emerging scientists, assess the correlation between funding uncertainty and decisions to remain in or leave the country for research careers.

Key Quotes

"The Trump administration disrupted federal funding for all kinds of scientific pursuits and to talk about the implications of those cuts i've brought in npr health and science correspondent rob stein and katie rittall"

Emily Kwong introduces the topic by stating that the Trump administration's disruption of federal funding for scientific pursuits has led to negative implications. Kwong brings in NPR correspondents Rob Stein and Katia Riddle to discuss these effects.

"so at the turn of the 20th century there really wasn't necessarily a marriage between science and government but that changed around the time like you said of world war ii as part of that war effort the us plowed money into scientific research and it led to advancements like penicillin becoming widely available and the development of the first nuclear weapons"

Rob Stein explains that the relationship between science and government in the U.S. shifted significantly around World War II. Stein highlights that this period saw increased government investment in scientific research, which resulted in critical advancements such as the widespread availability of penicillin and the creation of nuclear weapons.

"many of the people who katia and i talked to for this reporting express grave concerns that this grand american scientific experiment is suffering irreparable damage"

Rob Stein conveys the serious concerns of scientists interviewed for the report. Stein indicates that these individuals believe the extensive American scientific endeavor is facing damage that may be irreversible.

"she told me about getting anonymous internal emails that were terminating research just because it might mention something that sounds like diversity equity and inclusion you know dei she's not speaking on behalf of the agency here what we call drone attacks coming from above you know no names no email addresses there's no human accountable human being that we know of so to have this just like attack from above it's just it's absolutely soul crushing"

Sylvia Joe describes the demoralizing experience of receiving anonymous emails that terminated research projects based on mentions of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Joe characterizes these communications as "drone attacks from above" due to the lack of accountability, finding them "soul crushing."

"what was done this year was basically move fast and break things without a whole lot of interest in what the consequences might be i just find it heartbreaking and that's a pretty widely held view"

Dr. Francis Collins, former NIH director, criticizes the approach taken, describing it as "move fast and break things" without considering the repercussions. Collins expresses that this methodology is "heartbreaking" and reflects a common sentiment among those concerned about the scientific community.

"he says that when the federal government isn't prioritizing science or doesn't seem excited about it that impacts this next generation of scientists in america as well i know it may not seem like a direct connection but it is in fact huge that space exploration inspires and and motivates people to do their math homework and can do their physics and move into into technical areas"

Fran Bagenal explains that a lack of federal government prioritization or enthusiasm for science negatively affects the next generation of American scientists. Bagenal emphasizes that seemingly indirect influences, such as space exploration inspiring students, are crucial for motivating them to pursue STEM fields.

Resources

External Resources

Books

"Science: The Endless Frontier" by Vannevar Bush - Mentioned as the report that set the US on a path to prosperity, health, economy, and national security after World War II.

People

Vannevar Bush - Credited with establishing the foundation for the US system of science investment through his 1945 report.
Patrick McCray - A historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who discusses the historical investment in science.
Bruce Alberts - Former president of the National Academy of Sciences, who expresses concern about the damage to the US scientific experiment.
Sylvia Joe - A grants manager at the National Cancer Institute who described the impact of internal emails terminating research.
Francis Collins - Former director of the NIH, who described the administration's actions as "move fast and break things."
Jay Baracharia - NIH director who argues for changes to fund more innovative science and reduce risk aversion.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - Secretary of Health and Human Services, mentioned in relation to claims of politicizing the NIH.
Fran Bagenal - An astrophysicist at the University of Colorado working on the NASA Juno mission, who discussed the impact on the next generation of scientists.
Brandon Coventry - A young scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison whose grant funding was revoked and is considering leaving the US.

Organizations & Institutions

NPR (National Public Radio) - Mentioned as a public media organization facing challenges to its editorial independence.
Donors Choose - A platform connecting teachers with donors for classroom needs.
University of California, Santa Barbara - Institution where historian Patrick McCray is based.
University of California, San Francisco - Institution where Bruce Alberts previously worked.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) - Described as the largest public funder of biomedical science, facing significant disruption and funding cuts.
National Cancer Institute - A division of the NIH where Sylvia Joe works.
National Science Foundation (NSF) - A federal agency that has seen grants canceled.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) - A federal agency where science has been disrupted.
NASA - A federal agency where science has been disrupted and research projects are put into limbo.
Department of Veterans Affairs - A federal agency that has seen studies disrupted.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - Mentioned as a medical and public health agency.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) - Mentioned as a medical and public health agency.
University of Colorado - Institution where Fran Bagenal is an astrophysicist.
University of Wisconsin-Madison - Institution where Brandon Coventry is conducting research.
Canada - Mentioned as a potential alternative country for scientists seeking sustainable research environments.

Other Resources

First Amendment - Mentioned as guaranteeing editorial independence.
World War II - Cited as a turning point for US investment in science, leading to advancements like penicillin and nuclear weapons.
Penicillin - An advancement that became widely available due to scientific investment during World War II.
Nuclear Weapons - An advancement developed during World War II.
Internet - Mentioned as a breakthrough built on scientific investment.
Genetic Medicine - Mentioned as a breakthrough built on scientific investment.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) - Mentioned as a topic that led to the termination of research funding.
Juno Mission - A NASA mission studying Jupiter, mentioned in relation to Fran Bagenal's work.
Parkinson's Disease - A disease that Brandon Coventry's research could help.
Epilepsy - A disease that Brandon Coventry's research could help.