| My column this week
described how one university in France is opening its doors to American
scientists whose work has been curtailed or threatened by new federal
policies. Though many readers expressed outrage and sympathy, some
questioned whether things are really so bad. After all, didn’t the
Senate just vote to halt cuts to the National Institutes of Health, and haven’t some changes been paused, pending legal challenges? | | The reality is more troubling
than headlines might suggest. Since the start of the second Trump
administration, I have heard from colleagues in the medical research
community about their experiences. Many are afraid to speak openly but want the public to understand the effects of these policy decisions on the future of science. I am sharing some of their stories here, while respecting their wishes to omit details that would identify them. | | A
microbiologist at a major Midwestern university told me about
supervising a postdoctoral researcher whose NIH funding was terminated
in the spring. A court later ordered the money to be reinstated, but the postdoc has yet to receive it. | | “I
am supporting her for now so that she can pay her bills and keep her
health insurance,” the supervisor told me. “My postdoc is trying to hold
out hope that her career can be salvaged, but it has caused an extreme
amount of stress.” | | A
graduate of a respected MD-PhD program and a competitive residency and
research fellowship told me a similar story. They were on track to
successfully launching a lab and supervising graduate students and
postdocs. However, in response to diminished funding, many universities have instituted hiring freezes, and deeper cuts are expected. Some have even rescinded offers to prospective researchers. “Nobody is hiring, and who knows how long in the future this will extend?” the person said. | | In addition, the NIH institute this scientist typically relies on for funding might vanish altogether under a proposed reorganization that would consolidate the agency’s 27 institutes and centers into just eight. “There’s
so much uncertainty, it’s just devastating,” said the scientist, who is
now actively applying for jobs in the private sector. | | Established
researchers also face an uncertain future. A physician-scientist who
oversees several major HIV research programs said one federal grant that
is routinely funded was not even reviewed this year because it contained language about sexual and gender minorities. Another large trial of a medication to prevent HIV transmission lost most of its support and had to be drastically scaled back. Many planned analyses have been canceled. | | This
researcher now spends every spare moment writing grant applications, in
hopes of keeping the research alive and the team employed. However, far
fewer grants are getting funded. At one NIH institution, about 10 percent of grant applications were accepted in fiscal 2024. In fiscal 2025, the rate dropped to just 4 percent, meaning that, to succeed, an application has to outperform 96 percent of the competition. “It’s throwing spaghetti at the wall, hoping something will stick,” the physician-scientist said. | Another
senior scientist, a pediatric cancer researcher at an East Coast
institution, leads a 10-year-old NIH-funded summer program for
underprivileged high school students. A select few are chosen to conduct
laboratory research, each one earning a weekly stipend of about $400.
For many of these students, the income is essential for covering meals,
bus passes and support for their families. | | This
summer, 13 students were accepted among 200 applicants, but none of the
promised funds arrived, causing the students considerable distress.
The scientist reached out to foundations and private donors to cover
some costs. When the federal funding eventually arrived, it was
significantly less than the grant amount. | | This scientist cannot revert to full-time clinical practice the way physician-researchers can to justify their salaries. “How
am I going to stand in front of 50 students motivating them to go into
STEM when I don’t know if I will have a job next week?” the person
asked. | | Only one of the scientists I talked with agreed to be named: Natoshia Cunningham,
a clinical psychologist and associate professor in the department of
family medicine at Michigan State University. Her husband, who was a
senior scientist at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, saw his research group decimated and has gone to work for a
family construction business. | | Cunningham
describes the situation in academic research as “walking through a
battlefield and there’s just all these bombs that are going off at all
times all around me.” She recently learned that her study on lupus,
an autoimmune condition, will not be funded next year. A colleague’s
work on birth outcomes among Black mothers already has been terminated. | | Researchers
are frantically scrubbing terms such as “diversity” and “gender” from
their grant applications as they grapple with uncertainty over how political appointees might alter the grant review process.
In the meantime, competition for funding has become fierce. “It feels
like you’re just setting people up for failure,” Cunningham said. | | Everyone
I spoke with lamented the politicization of science and research. The
HIV researcher, like so many other scientists, was working to improve
lives. “And now ‘science’ has become a bad word,” this person said. “People
talk about research as if it’s some kind of corrupt waste of money as
opposed to a path forward for all of us to be healthier.” | | The scientists’ concerns go far beyond the fear that they might lose their jobs. They
worry for the culture of collaboration and innovation that has made the
United States the global powerhouse for medical research. Its potential decline threatens generations of future scientists and jeopardizes medical advances for decades to come. | | Are
you a scientist whose work has also been affected? I would like to hear
from you and include your story in a future edition of The Checkup.
Please write to me. | |