by Brendon Davis
When I was on Capitol Hill this summer discussing the President’s budget request (PBR) with Congressional offices, I was routinely told by Republican offices that the massive cuts to science it proposes are nothing to be worried about because the PBR is nothing more than a "messaging document." That was put to the test when a House Appropriations subcommittee voted on a funding package in September that would maintain the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget, quite the deviation from PBR’s proposed $18 billion cut. They advanced the package, just as the Senate Appropriations Committee advanced similar NIH funding levels in July, moves that have been celebrated as wins for science. But the celebrations for such tepid wins come far too early. We are now in the midst of a government shutdown, and the most recent House budget package includes major cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H). Beyond that, right-wing legislators, even after voting for science funding, have remained quiet about the administration undermining our scientific institutions.
The penchant to dismiss the significance of the PBR and the Administration’s other actions against science highlights how Congress is failing to address the larger issue at hand. The ability for researchers and innovators to trust America's continued support of science is dramatically waning. Even if Congress says no to a funding plunge this year, researchers and innovators will be hard-pressed to forget their fear of what could have been lost. The consequences of fading vocal support for science are serious and are further propelled along by the political virtue signaling exemplified in so-called "messaging documents." The loss of confidence in America’s scientific endurance is about communication as much as it is about money.
Federal science funding has been a constant over the past half century in America. The government’s investment in research and development has climbed at a moderate pace under administrations from both parties. This commitment has allowed America to lead the world as a science, medicine, and technological innovator. Because of this status, scientists have continued to trust in America’s support and chosen the build their careers here. America has collected the world’s most talented scientists, nurtured them in some of the world’s best universities and research environments, provided the independence to perform inquiry-driven science and produce consistent groundbreaking results, and applied these findings to help those in America and the rest of the world. This whole enterprise predictably fails when science goes unfunded, but it also begins to crumble when researchers lose certainty that America supports science.
Research projects can require scientists to invest years of time and resources, and academics often build their name and reputation at one institution, scrambling to achieve tenure and secure funding. Constancy in government funding opportunities is the one thing that makes pursuing science and advancing in these careers possible. An early career scientist’s nightmare scenario would be to commit to a career-defining research direction, only for their grants to be cut before the results can be realized. Then their research, and even their future contributions, would be lost. That nightmare is now a reality for investigators across the country whose grants have been canceled, and the threat of that reality looms large for everyone else working in scientific research in America.
Why would a young scientist want to strike out for a career in America in this environment? I know graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who understandably now browse the research opportunities at Canadian schools and explore foreign talent recruitment programs. France is already making waves welcoming America’s “scientific refugees.” Brain drain comes quickly.
It is a fair point to say that science has no borders, and discoveries made here could, with the right infrastructure, be made elsewhere. But scientists readily understand that America's status as a centralized research hub means more efficient research. If American science falters, no other country is going to be able to pick up the slack, with the notable exception of our economic competitors in China. Plus, performing research in America results in Americans reaping more immediate rewards, from the medical benefits that come from new drug approvals to the economic benefits brought by STEM startups.
Concerns about American support for science will persist as long as the government projects a message of anti-research. That is why a preliminary funding package is not a cause for celebration. Even if Congress advances the budget, the Supreme Court has allowed the current administration to move forward in cutting $800 million in NIH grants, and the Department of Education has taken steps to condition research funding on ideological agendas. When the outlook of science is so bleak, it is necessary that elected officials publicly oppose attacks on science like grant cancellations and budget cuts. This is essential now, and it will be essential long after any budget deal is reached. The message must be loud and clear: despite the vocal opposition of a few, America will continue to support the scientific enterprise.
This is not a time for “watch what we do, not what we say.” Congress must vote to keep research funded, but they must also reaffirm their commitment by speaking to America’s value of innovation. For America to remain a scientific superpower, scientists must continue to believe that there is no better place in the world to do research. It is up to our leaders to make that a reality in both word and deed.
Brendon Davis is the President of the Science Policy and Diplomacy Group at Johns Hopkins, and he is a PhD Candidate in the Cellular and Molecular Biology Program at Johns Hopkins University, where he is studying the mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance in dividing Drosophila stem cells. Brendon was also a Delegate in the 2024 cohort for the ASBMB Advocacy Training Program and is currently an Associate Editor for the Journal of Science Policy and Governance.
Edited by John Soltis