Is The Trump Administration Breaking Science?
16:39 Share

This message comes from NPR sponsor, Atio, the CRM for the AI era. Connect your email and Atio instantly builds a powerful CRM with every company, contact, and interaction you've ever had. Start your free trial at attio.com slash NPR. You're listening to Shortwave from NPR.

From almost the moment President Donald Trump took office, he has made his plans for science and the federal funding of science known. Just a few days after the inauguration, Trump suspended public communications across the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS.

They oversee the National Institutes for Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration. Trump then issued executive orders to terminate all work related to DEI, environmental justice, and gender inclusivity. And these effects rippled through scientific institutions. The CDC purged thousands of pages from its website. The National Science Foundation froze grantmaking for a while to comply with the orders.

And DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, started to shrink the federal workforce, firing thousands of workers from all corners of the government. All of this has put science on the defensive.

The Stand Up for Science movement organized to fight back. My sign says, powered by science, strengthened by diversity. My sign says, diseases don't have party lines. And it also says, science is for everyone. Mark Belisle and Nellie Simmons came out to the D.C. march.

one of 32 rallies around the country, from the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., to Cornell University's rally in late February. Cornell is where Marguerite Pacheco spoke with our colleague Aurora Berry at WSKG. Marguerite is a Ph.D. student in biomedical engineering and says these days, writing to grant providers has been like writing to ghosts. Everyone who would have ever interfaced with us has just, like, disappeared. So it's been, like,

The Trump administration's stated goal in all of this is to cut what they claim is administrative bloat, the kinds of taxpayer dollars that fund research overhead costs.

But Marguerite wonders what will happen if basic research in the U.S. starts to falter. When you take your kid to a hospital with a broken arm, we know how to fix that broken arm because of basic research science, because of science that happens at universities. Every single thing that you have in your life that has been produced and put out into the world, at some point that depended a little bit on public research dollars helping fund these institutions and the work that we do. The thing about science, and I've heard this over and over again from people in the field, is that it's not just about science.

Science is fragile. Research that can take a lifetime to prop up can be dismantled in a matter of days. So today, with three of my colleagues on NPR's science desk, we're going to explore the first 50 days of science under the current Trump administration by focusing on three U.S. agencies, the NIH, the CDC, and the National Science Foundation. I'm Emily Kwong, and this is Shorewave from NPR.

This message comes from Charles Schwab. When it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices, like full-service wealth management and advice when you need it. You can also invest on your own and trade on Thinkorswim. Visit Schwab.com to learn more.

This message comes from NPR sponsor, Atio. Atio is the CRM for the AI era. Connect your email and Atio instantly builds your CRM with every company, every contact, and every interaction you've ever had enriched and organized.

Build AI-powered automations and use its research agents to tackle some of your most complex business processes, freeing you to focus on what matters the most, building your company. Start your free trial at attio.com slash NPR.

This message comes from Bombas. Nearly 30% of marathoners end their race blistered. Bombas running socks are strategically cushioned to help say bye to blisters. Run to bombas.com slash NPR and use code NPR for 20% off your first purchase.

All right. So we're going to get into some updates from the science world from the first 50 days of the Trump administration. And I've got here my colleagues, Rob Stein, who's been covering the NIH, Ping Huang, who's been covering the CDC, and Jonathan Lambert, who's been covering the National Science Foundation. Hey, everyone. Hey, Emily. Hi there. Hi. 50 days later, here we are. We're going to start, Rob, with a little bit of a story.

So the NIH was one of the federal health agencies that was hit by this communications blackout. You know, queries from reporters were met with silence. All travel was suddenly canceled. So the NIH was one of the federal health agencies that was hit by this communications blackout.

a general sense of fear, confusion, and anxiety settled over the labs and offices and clinics on the sprawling NIH campus just outside Washington. And, you know, that was just the beginning. Okay, so this was just days after the inauguration. What happened next? Well, then a real shocker hit late on a Friday. It was February 7th. The NIH announced that the agency was capping what the NIH pays universities, medical schools, research hospitals, and other institutions for so-called indirect costs.

at 15%. And what are indirect costs? Yeah, these are essentially the overhead costs of conducting medical studies to search for new cures for everything from cancer and heart disease to addiction and Alzheimer's. You know, think about electricity to keep the lights on, janitors to clean buildings and take out the trash. Right.

Researchers said the cap would essentially cripple medical research. Don't forget, with a budget of more than $48 billion, the NIH is the world's largest public funder of biomedical research. Yeah. So this was seen as an almost existential threat to the whole U.S. biomedical research enterprise.

Did the administration explain why? Yes. They said the 15% was more in line with what other funders pay, like, you know, private foundations, and argued that institutions could cover more of these costs themselves by eliminating bloat in their budgets and by dipping into their endowments, especially big, wealthy schools like Harvard and Yale. Though I should note, a federal judge in Boston has blocked the 15% cap

on indirect costs from going into effect. So that came as a huge relief to researchers, as you might imagine. And the Trump administration announced then a wave of job terminations across the federal government, decided through Doge as part of its aggressive effort to downsize bureaucracy. Rob, how many workers did the NIH lose in particular? Yeah.

Yeah, so we estimate that the NIH lost about 1,200 of the agency's 18,000 employees. And since the layoffs were aimed at probationary employees, they were pretty much random, hitting, you know, relatively junior scientists, but also senior investigators who had recently taken new jobs or been promoted.

Plus, some top leaders started being forced out. And most recently, HHS has started offering $25,000 to employees of that agency, and that's part of HHS, if they leave. And there are also rumblings of some senior scientist contracts not being renewed. Got it. Yeah. And where do things stand at the NIH when it comes to grants?

So the NIH had been blocked from reviewing new grants, but that's been partially lifted. So that whole process of reviewing grant applications has restarted to some degree. At the same time, though, a lot of existing grants have been terminated to comply with the president's executive orders, barring anything related to DEI and the LGBTQ community.

And on top of all of that, we have a new potential head of the NIH. Tell me about this person. Right. Trump picked Dr. Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford to take over the agency. He's a very well-respected health economist with a strong record of high-quality research. But he has also been a vocal critic of the NIH, most notably during the pandemic. He argued against measures like lockdowns.

During his confirmation hearing last week, he promised to create a more open environment at the NIH for what he called dissenting views. And Baratoria is expected to be easily confirmed. So everyone's waiting to see what he does and bracing for the possibility of more cuts and possibly even a major restructuring. The question is, how radical will those reforms be and how will they be done?

Okay, so that is the NIH. Let's move on to the CDC. Ping Huang, you are covering the agency responsible for protecting the nation's health.

including combating infectious disease. What's going on with the CDC? Yeah, so a lot of similarities with what you just heard about NIH. So like the NIH, the CDC was hit by a communications freeze. People who had grants with CDC or had calls with them for ongoing outbreaks couldn't speak with anyone there for a few weeks.

Also, as a result of Trump's executive orders, there was this weekend at the end of January where web pages and data sets started disappearing from the CDC website. You know, this was when references to trans people and pregnant people were taken down, along with some tools that policymakers used to track HIV and STIs and adolescent health.

Now, some of that has gone back up. And in February, a federal judge actually ordered them to put the websites back up. There's really a kind of a back and forth between the executive and the judiciary branches at the federal level. Yeah. When it comes to science right now. Absolutely. And then also in terms of the workforce, like at the other health agencies, there was a firing at CDC. Around 750 people were let go around Valentine's Day, although some have actually been asked to come back. And also...

And all of this has just been really distracting from the agency's mission, which is to keep the nation safe. Yeah. What are we dealing with when it comes to disease? So right now there are more than half a dozen active outbreak responses at CDC right now. So those cover things like

bird flu, MPOCs, there's East Africa viral hemorrhagic fever, also tropical insect-borne diseases, dengue and orapouche, and there's also one for measles in Texas and now New Mexico and an ongoing polio response. And those are just the formal responses. It doesn't include the CDC's regular other work on things like...

worker health or preventing accidents or chronic diseases or dealing with the health effects of environmental toxins, for instance. The CDC does a lot. It does a lot. But you mentioned earlier that some folks have been brought back. Some of these firings have been reversed. What's going on there?

There were two programs in particular that got a lot of attention for being wiped out. That was the Laboratory Leadership Service, which is this partner fellowship to the Epidemic Intelligence Service, which is well known. It's the EIS program. And then also the Public Health Associate Program, which puts recent graduates in state and local health departments. Those left some gaps in the public health system that our colleague Will Stone and I have been reporting on.

Now, the members of these two fellowships in particular have been asked to return. They got these emails last week saying, your termination has been rescinded. You can come back and, quote, we apologize for any disruption that this may have caused.

And these fellowships make up a sizable number of the 180 or so people that have been asked to return. But still, you know, these rescindments offered no protections against future reductions in force, which are expected to be coming to the agency. Oh, OK. So it's like such a zigzag. Where does that leave the CDC now?

This week. Yeah, Emily, all of this chaos and confusion at the agency is having some lingering effects. There are scientists and researchers that have this mistrust of the data on the CDC website now. They're concerned that it's corrupted or that – The one that – the data that was re-uploaded? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So they're worried that it won't be collected in the same way going forward or that there might be interruptions to it. They're not sure that they can rely on it. Wow.

The agency is also, even though the communications freeze has officially lifted, it's not back to super normal communications and staff morale is really awful. I mean, some teams have lost really critical people and nobody there feels like their job is safe.

So this week, there's a confirmation hearing for Dr. Dave Weldon, who is Trump's pick for the CDC. It's the first time that a CDC director needs to be confirmed by the Senate, and it could soon have a new leader. All right. So we have a new head of the CDC, a new head of the NIH, which is pretty standard for when there's a new presidency, a new administration. But let's talk about the NSF. John, you have been covering the National Science Foundation, which dispenses federal funding for basic research. These are like fundamental questions across all areas of science.

What has it been like over at the NSF? Yeah, similar to what Ping and Rob recounted, it's been a roller coaster. It started the week after inauguration when NSF canceled its grant reviews and then froze funding for grants that had already been awarded. Now, they did all this because they said that they needed time to review how their grant making process aligned with Trump's executive orders targeting DEI.

So I talked to some researchers with these specific fellowships where their salaries get directly paid by NSF, and they couldn't pay for their rent, much less their own research. So funds started flowing again about a week later, but scientists are still really on edge. And that's because of this big redline.

review that NSF is doing of all their grants. They're screening all existing grants for basically like DEI words, things like diversity or underrepresented. Those words could appear on virtually all NSF grants because in the 90s, Congress mandated that NSF needs to consider how its grants will boost the participation

Oh, interesting. Okay. Yeah. With the idea of broadening the sort of STEM workforce. Yeah. This really would be such a different way of doing science from how it's been done for many decades now in the U.S. Yeah. And overall, this is just a huge departure from how science has been funded in the past. Like, this is a huge departure from how science has been funded in the past.

administrations do get to set priorities, but they don't usually go in and sort of say specific kinds of grants should or shouldn't get funded. And that appears to be what's happening now. Now, some people argue that NSF shouldn't be considering diversity and funding at science, but only the science. But I talked to Neil Lane, who was the director of NSF from 1993 to 1998, and he said... It's totally unprecedented.

Certainly during my time, there was never anything like this. I think they're killing science. Wow. Okay. 50 days hence, where do things stand now with the NSF?

So existing grants are getting paid out, but the DEI review of those grants is ongoing and it's unclear what will happen to grants that get flagged. NSF is also still awarding some new grants, but at significantly lower rates in certain areas, especially those targeting STEM education. And in response to a court order calling the firings of probationary employees illegal, NSF

rehired 5% of their workforce. Still, NSF told staff to expect cuts of about 25 to 50%. And President Trump's proposed budget may still slash the agency's budget by billions. So there's just lots and lots and lots of uncertainty. Yeah. Uncertainty really does seem to be the status of science in the U.S., at least when it comes to federal funding, but maybe just period. So what

All three of you, I want to ask, what does this mean for the future of science in the U.S., and particularly for current students or people who are hoping to go into scientific fields? I mean, I can jump in here, Emily. So based on how it's gone so far, people we've spoken with are worried that these cost-cutting measures are making things less efficient in the short term, and they're undermining these agencies and their ability to fulfill their missions to protect and improve people's health in the long run. Okay.

Yeah, I've talked to a lot of researchers who are worried that prospective scientists are just going to look at the state of science now and decide they want to do something different. Like not go into science at all. Like not go into science at all. And some universities are already turning away prospective grad students because they aren't sure if they're going to have money to fund them. And overall, this could really just...

ultimately shrink American science and lead to fewer discoveries. And, you know, science is an international enterprise and the U.S. is a leader internationally when it comes to scientific research. So the real concern is where is this going to go? And is this U.S. going to be giving up that position in the world?

That's Rob Stein, Ping Huang, and Jonathan Lambert. Thank you so much for joining me, and good luck in continuing to report on this. You're welcome, Emily. It's great to be here. Good to be here. Thanks, Emily. This episode was produced by Rachel Carlson. It was edited by Rebecca Ramirez and Giselle Grayson and fact-checked by Tyler Jones. The audio engineer was Robert Rodriguez. Special thanks to Aurora Berry and Rachel Waldholz. Beth Donovan is our senior director, and Colin Campbell is our senior vice president of podcasting strategy.

I'm Emily Kwong. Thank you for listening to ShoreWave, the science podcast from NPR. Support for this podcast and the following message come from Indeed. You just realized your business needed to hire someone yesterday. Indeed's sponsored jobs helps you stand out. According to Indeed data, sponsored jobs posted directly on Indeed have 45% more applications than non-sponsored jobs.

Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed and get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at indeed.com slash NPR. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring. Indeed is all you need.

This message comes from Bombas. Nearly 30% of marathoners end their race blistered. Bombas running socks are strategically cushioned to help say bye to blisters. Run to bombas.com slash NPR and use code NPR for 20% off your first purchase.

Support for NPR and the following message come from Bowlin Branch. Change your sleep with Bowlin Branch's airy blankets, cloud-like duvets, and breathable sheets. Feel the difference with 15% off your first order at bowlinbranch.com with code NPR. Exclusions apply. See site for details.