Welcome to Science Quickly. I’m Rachel Feltman.
It’s just 18 days into the second Trump administration, and the impact on health and science has been pretty chaotic. Federal funding freezes are causing confusion, communication from health agencies is on hold, and the president has signed numerous executive orders.
What’s next? To help us make sense of it all, I spoke with Max Kozlov, a reporter at Nature focusing on biomedical science.
Max Kozlov: Thanks for having me.
Feltman: There’s been a whirlwind of activity. For those who haven’t been following closely, what are the major headlines impacting science and health right now?
Kozlov: It’s been a lot to digest. The most significant issue is the funding freeze. Agencies like the NIH are reviewing grants to comply with new orders that target specific language such as “diversity” and “inclusion.” This has led to chaos as agencies are removing crucial resources from their websites, which are essential for public health and scientific research.
Feltman: Are we seeing similar archiving efforts like last time to preserve data before it gets removed?
Kozlov: Absolutely. Many are coming together on social media to archive important datasets, especially from the CDC, which is vital for public health research. For example, the swift control of the mpox outbreak relied on identifying at-risk communities—a process that could be hampered without access to specific data that is now in jeopardy.
Feltman: What keywords are being flagged as problematic by the administration?
Kozlov: I recently wrote about this with the National Science Foundation. Keywords like “climate science,” “diversity,” and even “race” are under scrutiny. There’s uncertainty about how these grants will proceed, but as of now, a federal judge has paused some funding efforts due to questions of executive overreach.
Feltman: There have also been reports of communication freezes within health agencies. What’s happening there?
Kozlov: Yes, there’s been a significant pause in communications across health agencies since the administration took office. While some pauses are typical during transitions, this one is unusual in its scope. Scientists from the NIH report an inability to engage with the public or even attend external meetings, which has led to canceled conferences and grant reviews.
Feltman: Experts are concerned about how this affects public health issues, like the ongoing bird flu outbreak.
Kozlov: Exactly. The CDC’s weekly digest, a crucial publication for tracking outbreaks, was recently delayed for the first time in over 60 years. This is concerning, especially with several papers in that digest relating to the bird flu outbreak, a potential threat to human health.
Feltman: And the U.S. withdrawing from the World Health Organization must be impacting the flow of critical information.
Kozlov: Yes, that’s a major issue. The withdrawal will take time, but already, the CDC has been instructed to limit communication with the WHO. This affects both U.S. health and global collaboration.
Feltman: What can we expect in the next four years given these actions?
Kozlov: There’s a lot of uncertainty. A postdoctoral researcher mentioned that the current environment feels unstable for scientists. With funding fluctuations, many researchers are left on edge.
Feltman: It sounds like this could lead to a talent drain in the health and science sectors.
Kozlov: Absolutely. Delays in funding can push foreign-born researchers to seek opportunities abroad, as they can’t sustain their work under uncertain conditions.
Feltman: Thank you for your insights, Max.
Feltman: Next, I spoke with Lauren Young, an associate health editor at Scientific American, about the ongoing impact on researchers.
Lauren Young: Thanks for having me!
Feltman: You reached out to researchers affected by funding disruptions. What have they been telling you?
Young: The response has been huge, with many sharing their feelings of uncertainty and frustration. Many early-career scientists, especially Ph.D. candidates and postdocs, feel confused about their future support amid mixed messages.
Feltman: It seems like the possibility of leaving the U.S. for better opportunities is on their minds.
Young: Definitely. Researchers are seriously considering moving abroad for stability in their academic careers. For instance, a candidate from Oklahoma State University expressed concerns about the future of research funding.
Feltman: What specific issues do researchers worry about regarding funding uncertainties?
Young: Many expressed concerns about data loss during funding interruptions. For example, clinical trials require human participation and timely processing of biological samples. Interruptions can result in waste and lost data, making it challenging to publish results or continue projects.
Feltman: And issues surrounding diversity initiatives are also coming up?
Young: Yes, especially among early career scientists who have benefited from DEI programs. I spoke with an NIH researcher who highlighted how important these initiatives are for fostering a supportive environment in labs.
Thank you for sharing your insights, Lauren. We’ll stay tuned for more updates.
That’s all for today’s discussion. Join us again on Monday for more science news. If you have questions, feel free to email us at ScienceQuickly@sciam.com. Thanks for listening!
Science Quickly is produced by a dedicated team, and special thanks go to Max Kozlov and Lauren Young for their valuable insights. Until next time, I’m Rachel Feltman. Have a great weekend.
Check out this related article: “Trump’s Anti-DEI Order Sparks Funding Turmoil for Philadelphia Scientists: What You Need to Know”
Source link