Over the past few years, scientists in the United States have faced a series of upheavals: Budgets at federal funding agencies have been cut, grants have been delayed or canceled, grant review policies have become murky and politically charged. In a recent post on Bluesky, neuroscientist Nicole Rust, one of The Transmitter’s contributing editors, asked scientists how they are dealing with that uncertainty two years in, and whether it is influencing how they plan to approach the next couple of years. “I’m now leaning into the notion that funding uncertainty is a new reality in the US and it’s unclear when it will lift,” Rust writes. “Because reality has changed, it doesn’t make sense to do the exact same things and expect the same outcomes. It’s time to revisit the value equation.”
Responses to her post spanned the gamut from cynicism to persistence and defiance, with many neuroscientists reflecting on how the new reality is affecting the community more broadly. The Transmitter spoke with some of the neuroscientists who commented on her post.
Several highlighted the damage being done to the scientific enterprise. “The American scientific superpower … is built on public funding,” Mark Histed, chief of the unit on neural computation at the National Institute of Mental Health, told The Transmitter, speaking in his personal capacity and not as a representative of the institute. “That is why the U.S. has been a talent magnet for the whole globe—because of public investment, and that public investment is what’s under threat … There is great damage being done to science, and the public is looking to scientists to talk about not just what is happening, but why.” He cites Science magazine—and its editor-in-chief Holden Thorp—as an outlet that is effectively discussing what is happening, offering a model for other organizations.
David Weinshenker, professor of human genetics at the Emory University School of Medicine, told The Transmitter that the uncertainty could have far-ranging impacts not yet fully appreciated: “I … don’t think the public realizes how far progress has already been set back and how many new treatments and cures will be delayed by years or decades or maybe never come to fruition.”
Funding uncertainty has also had a stark effect on morale within the scientific community. “The recent changes by the administration have created an unprecedented opaque and demoralizing environment for biomedical researchers,” Weinshenker told The Transmitter, citing efforts to terminate grants that don’t align with administration priorities and having political appointees make final funding decisions. “Under these conditions, it is very difficult to justify spending the dozens and dozens of hours and enormous bandwidth required for writing and submitting a really good grant.”
Weinshenker plans to continue to submit grants, but he says that he and others worry about having to downsize or shutter their labs. Because he has had a long career, this wouldn’t be as devastating as it might be to younger researchers, he says. “I am most furious and concerned about my more junior faculty colleagues, who are just starting or in the middle of their careers, as well as my current trainees who dream of working in academic science.”
Several commenters also noted the uneven impact of funding cuts. Kameron Decker Harris, associate professor of computer science at Western Washington University, says that non-R1 universities such as his are likely to be hit especially hard. “The [funding] pool is getting smaller, and we get lumped together with universities that have far more resources,” he says. “It’s very hard to compete.” Lack of grant funding is already affecting whether he can pay students, go to conferences and publish in open-access journals. “A $2,000 publishing fee would be a third of the cost of funding a summer research student,” he says. “The levels of money we deal with are an order of magnitude less than any of these big research institutions.” Decker Harris says he also plans to continue to apply for grants, “but I expect I will be shrinking the size of my research group.”
Sharena Rice, who will soon begin a new position overseeing neuroscience clinical trials at the healthcare company Radial, told The Transmitter she left academia before the ongoing upheavals, in part because of funding vagaries. In the current climate, she says she is seeing an increased interest in nontraditional paths to funding. “There is a lot more enthusiasm about starting focused research organizations amidst these changes,” she says.
Several other researchers cited growing interest in alternative funding sources, though some pointed out that these cannot make up for gaps in government funding—and availability is heavily sub-field dependent. Decker Harris, for example, told The Transmitter he plans to apply for more grants from private sources. “My work is NeuroAI type stuff; there’s lots of money for AI.”
Amid the strategizing, others expressed a mix of grief, resolve and hope about what lies ahead. “I am grateful that the brave organizers among us have successfully rallied support against the worst-case. I am furious that the damage already done will take a decade+ to repair,” wrote Julian Meeks, associate professor of neuroscience at University of Rochester Medicine, on Bluesky. “I am down several ppl, and can’t hire new ppl right now, but am working to support & survive in hopes of a brighter day.”
