US chemists express concern over funding cuts and political pressure

At the recent American Chemical Society (ACS) conference in Atlanta, attendees were in a celebratory mood as the ACS marked 150 years since its founding. Yet amid the festivities, many of those I spoke to were also expressing significant feelings of trepidation and frustration after a little over one year of President Trump’s second term. They were reluctant to speak their minds, even in private, and almost all who did wanted their comments to remain anonymous to prevent negative repercussions.

A biochemist at California Polytechnic State University who has been in academic chemistry for over two decades said the situation today is more ‘unsettled’ and ‘chaotic’ than it has ever been, and this has had a chilling effect on researchers.

Some of her colleagues have seen their studies abruptly cancelled, she added, apparently because they included words related to diversity, equity and inclusion, or other subjects that are disfavoured by the current administration, like climate and environmental sciences. She added that colleagues are now reluctant to request no-cost grant extensions from funding agencies – formerly a routine process – because they don’t want to risk the extra scrutiny.

One organic chemist who has been at a research university for almost 20 years noted that colleagues who served as ‘rotators’ at the National Science Foundation – researchers seconded from their university roles to provide subject matter expertise – felt as though they are being driven out as the administration seeks more control over funding decisions. He said one friend who became an NSF rotator last year only made it six months before ‘quitting in disgust ’ over the way advisors were being disregarded. Rotators typically serve for one to two years.

A computational chemist, who identifies as Palestinian and currently works at a research university in the Southeastern US and was previously at another major US research university for three decades, said things are ‘crazy’ right now. As an example, he noted that research faculty can’t go to certain countries such as China for quantum computing conferences . There is no direct prohibition on such travel, but for certain fields considered high-risk it is plagued with bureaucratic and legal obstacles.

‘With my Palestinian background, I won’t even try to go to China to attend a conference or pursue research collaborations,’ he asserted. His main concern is being blocked from re-entry to the US.

But some of the conference attendees had a slightly different take, arguing that researchers in the US have become too comfortable and complacent to deal with this turmoil. They suggested that it is vital to adapt, and that includes figuring out where to get funding for your work if traditional sources dry up.

Some described President Trump as ‘a disruptive CEO’ and pointed out that business consultants often advise clients working under volatile leaders to rename initiatives and make other adjustments to match the new boss’s priorities. That doesn’t necessarily mean abandoning important projects just to placate a mercurial leader, although that is a potential danger.

In the last year, many researchers whose work touches on now-delicate areas like climate-linked biochemistry have tweaked their grant titles and wording of their project abstracts to avoid being red flagged or possibly defunded. Such tactics might be pragmatic, but they could have negative repercussions for valuable research that can inform regulation or policy.

Meanwhile, the White House has just proposed more major funding cuts for key US research funders for the next financial year, which begins on 1 October, including a 55% reduction to the National Science Foundation’s budget. It remains to be seen if Congress will come to the rescue again.