The research funded by the NSF, from astronomy to zoology, is examined by the Trump administration.
Bryan Allen / Getty Images / The Image Bank RF
hide
tilting legend
Bryan Allen / Getty Images / The Image Bank RF
Darby Saxbe fears that its research funding will be canceled.
People’s brain changes when they become parents. She studies the brain of fathers, in particular, to understand what changes could underlie better parenting. And she wants to study a variety of brains.
“If you want to understand the changes in brain and biology of fathers, you do not necessarily want to look at only the rich white fathers lying around in a university, which could be made up of a practical sample,” explains the University of Neuroendocrinologist from southern California. “It’s just a better and more impactful research project.”
Thus, with a subsidy of the National Science Foundation – a federal agency with an annual budget of $ 9 billion to finance research – it works to include more people from minority groups in its study.
But his research proposal contained the words “diverse” and “under-represented”, words which now appear on a list of hundreds of terms related to DEI that NSF currently uses to paint through tens of thousands of research subsidies. The process, described at the NPR by two NSF officials who spoke subject to anonymity by fear of reprisals of the administration, aims to report research which does not comply with the executive orders of President Trump targeting diversity, ‘equity and inclusion initiatives.
This kind of control, as well as others Administration shares Until now – freezing of subsidies, tightening on the communications of federal agencies, Base databases on women’s health, HIV and young people and purge Some of the terms related to the DEI – represent many scientists an extreme decision to exercise more presidential control over the types of sciences that are funded, and potentially that does it. If it is prosecuted, it could represent a major gap in the way science has been funded for decades.
“This is completely unprecedented, nothing like this has ever happened,” explains Neal Lane, who was director of the NSF from 1993 to 1998. “NSF has the mandate to worry about the workforce and To make sure that all Americans have the opportunity to participate in science, “he said.
Since the 1990s, Congress has mandated That the NSF weighs the way in which its subsidies will strengthen the participation of women and minorities in science, in addition to the intellectual merits of the proposal. Now the Trump administration essentially says that it cannot follow this law.
“President Trump was elected president, but by being elected president, the laws of the United States have not been repealed and replaced by everything he wants to do,” said representative Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. Representatives Committee of Sciences, Space and Technology. “These are bipartite efforts to make sure that we are not missing the intelligent people of the scientific company in the United States.”
But some say that considering diversity in subsidies leads to a worse science. Last October, Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in a report that “NSF had allocated more than $ 2.05 billion to thousands of research projects that favored neo-Marxist prospects or principles of Dei “and suggested that he undermines” objective hard science “.
“Intellectual diversity is welcome,” said Jonathan Butcher, principal researcher at the Heritage Foundation. “But to judge the merits of an idea based on the description of the subsidy is much more important than to determine from where the people involved are literally, in terms of racial background or from country of origin.”
Change how science is funded
Presidents have the power to set priorities in funding for research and used this power. Biden administration has made an effort for the climate and cancer researchFor example, and the administration of George W. Bush Priorifying energy research and the physical sciences. Congress allocates money to these priorities, then the agencies determine the finest details.
“Since the Second World War, science has been organized around this idea of peer exam, which scientists understand what good science is and should make decisions about what we should finance,” explains Elizabeth Popp Berman, a sociologist who studies science at the University of Michigan.
In NSF, this means that program agents – often scientists who work in other institutions that come to the NSF for temporary stays – manage a process of revising proposals, with the contribution of a range of scientists. The law dictates that the NSF considers both the intellectual merit of a proposal and the “”broader impacts“Research could allow, which means how research will benefit society.
For decades, a key element of these potential advantages is how subsidies will strengthen the participation of women and groups underrepresented in science. Since 1997, Congress has forced NSF to explicitly These factors in his grant. According to Suzanne Barbour, dean of the Duke University Graduate School and president of the NSF equal opportunities committee in science and genius, which ultimately benefits the taxpayer.
“There is a great emerging literature that suggests that the teams have the biggest range of voices, different horizons, different types of experienced experiences, voice that may have tackled problems from slightly different angles”, she said. “They are more creative, they succeed more and … are ultimately the types of teams that make the greatest discoveries.”
Trump’s executive orders are downright opposed to this mission. The agency is currently examining subsidies for terms related to DEI using, in part, a list from Senator Cruz October 2024 report Entitled “How the political science of Biden-Harris NSF”, according to NSF sources of NPR.
We do not know what will happen to reported subsidies. NSF has resumed the financing of existing awards after freeze them late January And said They “cannot take measures to delay or stop payment of active attributions based solely on the real or potential non-compliance of decrees”. The sources of the NSF indicate at NPR that around 20% of the subsidies have been initially reported, and this number could still be aimed at.
By examining the subsidies for the content linked to the DEI and temporarily interrupting payments, the agency seems to give priority to the decree on its Congress mandate, a practice that contradicts internal directives. The law has priority on decrees When there is a conflict.
The efforts of the Trump administration to exercise more control over science at the NSF exceeds Dei. On Tuesday, staff were informed of the plans to reduce the agency’s workforce by around 1,700 to 25% to 50% over the next two months, according to NPR NSF sources. The staff was also informed that President Trump’s first budget request could pass the agency’s budget from 9 billion to $ 3 billion, Reported for the first time by Arstechnica And confirmed by NPR, although the actual reduction negotiated by the congress can be different.
“This administration seems not only to set priorities, but apply ideological conformity in a way that if your grant studies something that is not aligned with a particular vision of the world, it will simply be funded,” explains Berman . “I think the abolition has the potential to undermine the whole scientific business.”
Is concerned about the point of competition from America
If the Trump administration continues to aggressively targeting diversity initiatives in science and seeking to considerably reduce funding, American science will be fundamentally different, explains Berman.
Whole academic areas could be withered without federal funds, she says, especially if Dei is largely defined. “This reduces economics, psychology, sociology. In all these areas, there are whole pieces of the discipline which could simply no longer continue to continue,” explains Berman.
The movements also triggered a culture of fear among many scientists. “This level of control will make research less collaborative, less competitive and less innovative,” explains Diana Macias, an environmentalist at the University of California in Berkeley, funded by an NSF subsidy. Bringing more people to science is “not only an enlargement for enlargement, but it is a widening to develop rigorous questions that help us really remain competitive”.
Only approximately a quarter of NSF subsidy proposals win funding, and it is after a rigorous application process. The idea that a rewarded subsidy could be canceled or that the proposals are not funded for political reasons, makes many scientists uncomfortable and could ultimately lead some to leaving or leaving the United States
“I train graduate students and undergraduate students who wish to pursue scientific careers,” explains Saxbe. “It is difficult for me to think about how to encourage them when it seems that the very work we do is so vulnerable to partisan attacks.”
Federal funding supports these trainees, many of whom are finally going to the private sector. The NSF finances almost 80% of basic IT research in universities, according to a recent declaration of the IT research association.
Reduced funding could ultimately lead to a smaller workforce to work on important issues in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and more. It is despite an insistence by allies close to the president, including Elon Musk, that the United States absence Enough local talents to meet the demand of technology industry professionals such as software engineers and programmers.
“The private sector does a lot of very important research and development, mainly applied. But they really do not finance the same type of research where you really explore the border,” said Lane, the former director of the NSF.
“They cannot justify their shareholders to do most of the National Science Foundation. If you suppress federal support for science, science is dead in the United States. Nothing can replace it.”