Analytical Science Under Siege

The 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump, launched his second term in office by announcing a series of effective-immediate “executive orders,” centered on international relations and a crackdown on initiatives related to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) (1). Such statements were not unexpected, but few anticipated the speed – and scale – of what took place next.

A few days later, an internal memo was issued by the National Institute of Health (NIH) referencing an immediate – and indefinite – ban on travel. This was followed by another blow dealt on February 7th, as the NIH announced the introduction of a 15 percent cap on indirect costs for both new and existing research grants (2). Around the same time, the newly formed Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) – chaired by Elon Musk – instructed the National Science Foundation (NSF) to freeze funding for new research and cut staff numbers by as much as 50 percent in order to meet daunting financial targets (3).

Despite claims from NSF president Sethuraman Panchanathan that the agency is “continuing to advance the scientific enterprise” as usual, independent analysis of NSF’s publicly available database has suggested they have awarded up to 50 percent fewer grants compared to this time last year (4). More recent reports have suggested that DOGE is considering the termination of over 200 active grants, in addition to the axing of 1,000 places on the NSF’s prestigious research fellowship program for graduate students (5).

How has the analytical community responded to these recent developments? What are the immediate, imminent, and speculated repercussions? And is there any room for optimism? To get a grasp on the situation, we reached out to several past Power Listers and US-based leaders in the field to hear their thoughts and perspectives on the rulings. The general consensus? Well, as Lloyd Smith, W. L. Hubbell Professor of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin, succinctly puts it: “Disaster.

Feelings of surprise, confusion, and fear were ubiquitous. “It seems surreal,” says Susan Richardson, Arthur Sease Williams Professor of Chemistry at the University of South Carolina. “I have never experienced anything like this in my professional career,” adds Kevin Schug, Shimadzu Distinguished Professor of Analytical Chemistry at The University of Texas at Arlington.

Pulling no punches, Richard Zare, Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor at Stanford University, says: “If one sought to devise a plan to destroy science in the United States, it is hard to imagine a more effective strategy than what is presently in full operation.”

Uncertainty abounds

One consequence of the US government’s cost cutting measures is that many institute and faculty heads feel unable to commit to new endeavours. “The situation is extremely confusing – made worse by the uncertainty surrounding what’s actually happening versus what our administration wants to happen," says Schug. “This disconnect adds yet another layer of complexity, making it very difficult to predict outcomes.”

“Frankly, it’s driving people up the wall,” says ASMS President and UCLA Professor Joseph Loo, who goes on to describe the current mood at his institution. “Graduate students are losing support from training grants. Hiring freezes for new faculty and staff are in place. Some departments have begun to reduce the number of new graduates they recruit. Other department chairs have taken it further and told their faculty to reduce spending on everything – including instruments and lab supplies – in case the cuts come to fruition.”

In particular, the uncertainty around current grant applications is one of the most pressing issues. Schug suggests the only option for current applicants is to “try to ensure your proposed science avoids topics currently considered ‘taboo’ by this administration,” those topics being anything related to DEI or misinformation (6). And unfortunately, there’s evidence to suggest that even those who have avoided these topics have had their proposals flagged and denied nonetheless. Following an investigation into the publicly available NSF grants, it has been speculated that some applications have been rejected simply for the inclusion of “DEI-coded” terms – regardless of their original context (7). One application, for example, despite having no relation to DEI, is thought to have been rejected due to its use of the word “diversify,” in reference to plant biodiversity.

Although NIH grants are awarded for four years, the funding is on a year-by-year basis, which is different from NSF and other grants that are funded upfront. “As a result, NIH can withhold the next year’s funding (and by the looks of things, they are),” says Richardson. “Of course, this not only affects the research, but also sadly the graduate students who are typically living paycheck to paycheck on a small stipend.”

The NIH’s decision to reduce “indirect costs” from 50 to 15 percent is also set to have significant consequences. Loo states that these cuts represent “a huge loss of funds that essentially ‘keep the lights on’ and support all of the support personnel required for scientific research.”

“They are an essential and integral part of the University financial model,” says Smith.

John Yates, Ernest W. Hahn Professor at The Scripps Research Institute, points out that research grants include travel money for researchers to attend conferences. “If even that one item is cut or restricted in NIH funding, it would interfere with information sharing, the development of future collaborations – and would devastate the conference industry and the cities that depend on that business.”

A generation stifled?

One sentiment shared by many is the sympathy felt towards junior scientists and students facing – especially those facing layoffs. “What hurts in particular is watching the next generation of young, excited scientists, keen to make a real impact on the world, made redundant – often while still in their probationary periods,” says Erin Baker, Associate Professor at UNC Chapel Hill. “They are the ones who have been training on the latest and greatest techniques – the ones we hoped could use these skills to develop new treatments and find cures for important diseases, especially those which cause harm to so many of our loved ones.”

“It is uncertain whether [scientists] will be able to continue to support our graduate students as we have in the past,” says Richardson.

“Today, the uncertainty in the actions of the government and their effects on scientific research and education have caused frustration and anxiety among the students, the faculty, and the institution leadership,” laments Loo. “I would hate to be a younger scientist at the beginning of their career.”

Yates also notes that industry depends heavily on PhD analytical students, highlighting the long-term impacts the layoffs could have on science more broadly. “The American scientific board of HPLC recognizes that industrial jobs are so attractive for American LC trained students that very few seek academic jobs,” he says, “so a reduction in the number of analytical graduate students will profoundly impact industry and will further diminish the number of analytical scientists in academia to train future generations.”

Any room for optimism?

Unfortunately, any damage to analytical science is likely to have a lasting effect on many industries. “Without analytical science, there is no means to develop new measurements,” says Schug. “Without measurement, there is no way to assess new technologies. Simply put, a reduction in support for analytical science means a reduction in support for progress across all areas of science, technology, and medicine.”

“Analytical scientists are expected to pay careful attention to detail and to generate reproducible results,” says Baker. “Are these really the qualities we want to eliminate from our workforce, and our population?”

So, amid the confusion, speculation, and anxiety that so many are presently experiencing – is there a glimmer of hope, at the end of a long and narrow corridor of uncertainty?

As Schug points out, the views of the administration aren’t necessarily in line with those held by the wider American public – especially scientists – which he feels is widely appreciated abroad. "Much of the rhetoric I have encountered from voices outside the US understand that these decisions to pursue certain policies are solely that of the US administration,” he says. “With this in mind I don’t see my personal relationships with foreign colleagues eroding, only the mechanisms through which we might interact. Luckily, such mechanisms can always be restored if lost, and my hope is that personal relationships will not be damaged in the interim.”

Moreover, counter-moves to the recent rulings are already in full swing, with a number of lawsuits already in progress (8). “I want to believe in the rule of law, and most of the actions being taken are violating long standing law,” says Yates. “Traditionally, congress has supported the NIH and NSF on a bipartisan basis because researchers in every state receive funding and congressional reps are proud of their NIH and NSF funded researchers. Let’s hope these representatives fight for their constituents.” Yates is however worried that “even if the current proposed changes in funding are blocked or rescinded, the current administration will look for another way to cut NSF and NIH budgets.”

Loo believes that the adversity may – out of necessity, above all else – actually encourage collaborations between research groups. “Of course, I doubt this was the original intention of the funding cuts, but the consequences might be that more labs share the pain, but also share the gain.” Choosing optimism in the face of adversity, he implores members of the scientific community to “be resilient and focus on things that we can control, like the experiments in the lab.”

Ultimately, it appears to be very difficult to forecast what the rest of the year – let alone the remainder of Trump’s second term – may have in stock for the analytical science community. But, as Erin Baker puts it: “Science cannot start to move forward again until order is restored, chaos is removed, and our researchers and thinkers are no longer under attack.”

Newsletters

Receive the latest analytical science news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.

I have read and understand the Privacy Notice*

Subscribe