U.S. science is in chaos
...
Last June the budget hawks in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) pushed NASA into offering a broad package of buyouts, paid leave and early retirement. Over the next few weeks nearly 4,000 NASA employees—about a fifth of the workforce—took the deal. Reynolds’s AXIS team lost 20 people. The engineer designing the heaters to keep the x-ray mirror at a constant temperature: gone. The lead project manager: gone. William Zhang, the astrophysicist who invented the telescope’s mirror technology: gone. “We were literally left with their PowerPoints, trying to figure out what they’d done and where we were with aspects of the design,” Reynolds says.
Around the same time President Donald Trump’s budget proposal came out—with massive cuts to science funding. In the U.S., private money funds vast amounts of scientific development research, and philanthropy contributes a bit, but something like 40 percent of all the funding for basic, blue-sky, exploratory research comes from the federal government. The program that would have funded AXIS was zeroed out entirely.
...
Now, Reynolds says, he’s fine, mostly. He’s a tenured professor and has other research to work on. “The jobs that are lost are the future jobs,” he says. “And there’s an entire field of study in which U.S. leadership is at stake.” The hardest part, though, is how it happened. DOGE’s cuts sliced through American research grants like a thresher, “but this was much murkier,” Reynolds says. “We were never canceled. We were just starved to death.”
Countless scientists around the country are going through the same thing. Thousands of federal grants have been frozen or canceled, with perhaps 2,600 still in limbo—about $1.4 billion worth. The National Science Foundation and the National Ins utes of Health are awarding three quarters of their usual number of grants. Fewer people are entering graduate programs. Nearly 95,000 scientists have left federal government employment. The NIH used to issue as many as 850 “Notices of Funding Opportunity” every year—requests for proposals that sought specific kinds of research. In 2025 the agency issued 120. By mid-March of 2026, the NIH had sent 14.
...
DEI associations aren’t the only topics that get captured by the new political filters. Now, for the first time, grant recipients aren’t allowed to subcontract to collaborators on projects overseas. “That’s obviously a problem when you study nasty diseases such as Lassa fever and Ebola, because they’re not in this country,” says Kristian Andersen, an evolutionary biologist at Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. “That’s my whole career. This is why I came to the United States.”
Most years, when Andersen advertises a postdoctoral research opportunity in his laboratory, he gets up to 200 applicants with perhaps a third of them from Europe. This year he had 100 applicants and none from Europe. Typically his lab would apply for two or three so-called center grants every year. This past year there were none in virology, immunology or viral immunology to apply for. So what’s next? Andersen, who’s Danish, says that “for people like myself, I think the best option is probably to leave and do science elsewhere.” And he isn’t the only one thinking of getting out. Of about 1,650 scientists who responded to a poll by the journal Nature, 75 percent said they were considering it.
...
Last year a team of economists imagined what this new future might look like by creating an alternative past. In 2025 the NIH cut the amount of grant money awarded by more than 40 percent compared with years prior. What if, the team members asked, the NIH research budget had been 40 percent smaller for the past few decades? Grants in the bottom 40 percent of the priority queue, they reasoned, wouldn’t have been funded. The team tracked those grants to their outcomes—research that never happened in this parallel universe—and found that something like half of all drugs simply wouldn’t exist today. The lost therapies include imatinib, the first real treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia, and the lung cancer drug erlotinib.
...