A group of nearly 2,000 prominent American scientists, including several Nobel Prize recipients, have expressed significant concern over what they describe as the “decimation” of the United States’ scientific leadership under the Trump administration. These concerns are attributed to budget cuts in research and a growing atmosphere of fear, which they say threatens the independence of scientific research.
An open letter from members of the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, released on Monday, highlights these issues. The letter describes a “climate of fear” within the research community where scientists, fearing job security, have been withdrawing their names from publications, abandoning studies, and modifying grant proposals and research papers to avoid using scientifically accurate terms deemed objectionable by certain agencies.
The letter emphasizes the importance of science in everyday life, attributing technological advancements like smartphones, GPS, and medical breakthroughs to scientific research. It warns of the potential dangers posed by the administration’s funding cuts and the resulting impact on scientific agencies and laboratories. The authors claim that federal funding cuts to scientific agencies and grants, along with the defunding of laboratories, present a “real danger” to the nation’s scientific foundation.
Recent actions by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which include freezing new grant applications and delaying funding decisions, underscore the scientists’ concerns. As a result, layoff notices have been issued at both the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), though specific details are not yet available.
The administration has also been making efforts to eliminate certain “woke” initiatives by banning terms such as “health disparities” and “climate science.” These changes are highlighted by actions such as the NIH’s recent revocation of a scientific integrity policy designed to prevent political interference, ensuring alignment with the administration’s priorities.
Dr. Steven Woolf, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and a co-author of the letter, notes that the government’s actions exert pressure to align with ideological perspectives rather than maintaining scientific independence. The letter’s co-authors argue that defunding research that could improve public health may result in negative consequences.
An example of political interference in science is highlighted by the withdrawal of a public health study related to smoking inequities among rural young adults. The study was withdrawn from publication in the journal Public Health Reports after editors requested the removal of language related to gender and sexual orientation, in compliance with a presidential executive order. Tamar Antin, the co-author of the study, voiced her concern over this instance of political interference in science and expressed intentions to submit the research to other journals not influenced by federal funding.
Dr. Ana V. Diez Roux, a professor of epidemiology at Drexel University and another co-author of the letter, contends that the administration’s arbitrary funding cuts are more extensive than anything experienced during her three-decade career in research. Roux is concerned that these actions could discourage future scientific talent from pursuing careers in the United States.
Dr. Woolf asserts that public investment in U.S. science has significantly bolstered America’s global scientific standing since World War II. However, he warns that the current administration’s actions could have long-lasting detrimental effects on the nation’s research infrastructure and consequently on American lives.
