WASHINGTON – Weston Slaughter, a Ph.D. student in the University of Maryland’s Department of Geology, always wanted to be a government scientist. But if the Trump administration were to cut federal funding for science programs, his aspirations may become bleaker and blurrier.
“I think my dream is still to be able to do science that is meaningful and useful for the public and for the public good,” Slaughter said. “But, I don’t know, I’m certainly not counting any chickens.”
The United States has been the world leader in science for decades, but the Trump administration has made plans to cancel or freeze federal grants that fund scientific institutions and universities and shrink or abolish federal scientific agencies. Such actions would end the country’s decades of preeminence in science, researchers and experts warn.
Around 1,900 members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine signed a letter warning President Donald Trump of the dangers that funding cuts present.
“We all rely on science. Science gave us the smartphones in our pockets, the navigation systems in our cars, and life-saving medical care,” the letter said.
“A climate of fear has descended on the research community,” the scientists said, referring to what the future would look like after funding cuts.
“What is happening in this administration is that they are engaged in a process of closing down scientific exchange, debate and multiple opinions, which represent important ways to advance knowledge and find solutions to national and global problems to make life better for our nation,” Dr. Ruth Enid Zambrana, a distinguished university professor in the Harriet Tubman Department of Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies at the University of Maryland in College Park, told Capital News Service. She was one of the academies’ letter’s signers.
Dr. Christopher Jarzynski, a distinguished professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Maryland in College Park, echoed Zambrana’s sentiments but said that researchers and scientists must continue to do their work regardless of what may happen.
“We need to continue doing what we’re doing and believing that it’s valuable,” Jarzynski said. He also signed the academies’ letter.
However, Jarzynski said there has been hesitation in his department about bringing on new graduate students because he does not know whether or not they will be able to fund new students. This has led to difficulties for many undergraduate students applying to graduate schools and worries for current graduate students, like Slaughter, about finishing their programs.
“Do I think that I can reasonably expect to be able to be funded to complete my graduate research? I don’t know,” Slaughter said. “It’s likely that many people may struggle to get jobs, many people may not be able to complete their graduate school, but there’s also going to be a large class of people that are going to be asked to do a lot more with a lot less.”
Slaughter also mentioned the difficulties international students and faculty members face when they come to the United States to study or work in academia.
“I can’t emphasize enough that, across the board, in this country, our research and development depends on people from foreign countries that want to come here and are willing to come here to do research,” Slaughter said. “Not only attacking the public funding of science, but just this multilateral assault, not only on that, but also on immigrants…in many different ways, I feel like, is working to deteriorate the things that make good science possible in the U.S.”
Funding cuts could extend beyond the laboratories, though, and impact many aspects of American life, scientists said.
“Science is a knowledge production process to help the human condition survive and thrive in its environment,” Zambrana said. “Therefore, we are ethically bound, in my view, to look at the reduction of scientific funding to universities as a more significant problem than the disruption of our work as scientists.”
“It profoundly impacts the institutions and the staff personnel who support these efforts, the education of the next generation of scientists, and the well-being of the people in the nation who ultimately benefit from scientific discovery,” she said.
Researchers from the University of Maryland and the University of Pennsylvania collaborated to create a map that showed the impact that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding cuts could have across the country. The map showed an estimated $16 billion in economic losses and the disappearance of 68,000 jobs.
Dr. Kirsten Lyke, a professor of medicine at the University of Maryland’s School of Medicine in Baltimore and a signer of the letter, said that 99.4% of drugs that are in use have had funding from the National Institutes of Health at some point in their development. The federal freeze on NIH funding could decrease funding for medicines, she said.
Dr. Lawrence Appel, a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that researchers and scientists are experiencing “decision paralysis” in their jobs. Many may have had relatively stable jobs, but they are suddenly unsure of what will happen and where to go next in their careers. Appel was also one of the professors who signed the letter.
“Nobody has a handle on whether these huge structural changes will persist,” Appel said. “If the changes do persist, the effects will be felt on the research enterprise, with ripple effects on the economy.”
The National Academy of Sciences was formed in 1863 during President Abraham Lincoln’s administration; the National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 and the National Academy of Medicine in 1970. The academies’ purposes were to advise the national government on scientific matters.
The academies were intended to be apolitical, but Lyke said that these are extraordinary times and that the academies must do a better job of explaining the benefits of science in terms that the general public can understand.
Multiple researchers who signed the National Academies’ letter shared similar ideas of what the next steps could look like, either before or after the hammer falls and grants get slashed. Some said there should be grassroots efforts to speak up.
“As scientists, I think we’re trying (to) make people aware of the consequences of what is happening,” Appel said. “And it’s not pretty. It’s not pretty.”
Dr. Joseph Richardson, Jr., a professor of African-American studies, medical anthropology and epidemiology at the University of Maryland in College Park and signer of the letter, recommended collaboration between institutions and colleagues.
“We’re going to need to think of more innovative ways to support the work that we’re doing,” Richardson said. “It’ll pull people out of their silos and encourage, hopefully, more scholars to collaborate, because otherwise it’ll just turn into the ‘hunger games,’ where we’re cannibalizing each other for the sake of going after the same small pool of money.”
Jarzynski said the public needs to pressure political leaders to fight the cuts to research. Lyke suggested that universities should work in concert to focus attention on the threats to American scientific dominance.
“A voice of anger is starting to rise,” Lyke said. “It’s, I hope, a rising tide that is starting to grow.”
However, she said she noticed that many of colleagues and fellow scientists have struggled to speak up out of fear of losing their jobs. Lyke said that the letter crafted by the National Academies was a good step in the right direction, but it would only be effective if it leads to effective action.
“I don’t want to be looking back in twenty years as someone who didn’t say something, and then the climate completely collapses in terms of our role in science in the world,” Lyke said.
CNS Washington reporter Jade Tran contributed to this story.