The White House moves researchers to control science financing: recordings

The research from astronomy to zoology is intensively examined by the Trump administration.

Bryan Allen/Getty Images/The Image Bank RF

Hide the caption

Switch the image signature

Bryan Allen/Getty Images/The Image Bank RF

Darby Saxbe fears that her research financing may be canceled.

People’s brains change when they become parents. In particular, she studies the brain fathers to understand what changes could be based on better parenting. And she wants to study a variety of brains.

“If you want to understand the changes in the brain and the biology of fathers, you do not necessarily want to look at only white wealthy fathers who hang around at a university, whereupon there is a comfortable sample,” says the university of the South California -Neuroendocrinologist. “This only ensures a better, more effective research project.”

With a scholarship from the National Science Foundation – a federal authority with an annual budget of 9 billion US dollars to finance research – she is working to include more people from minority groups in her study.

However, its research proposal contained the words “diverse” and “underrepresented” words that now appear on a list of hundreds of DEI-related terms with which NSF is currently combing tens of thousands of research grants. The process, which was described by two NSF officials, who have spoken for fear of retaliation about the administration of the condition of anonymity, with the deterioration of the administration, aims to identify research that may not be the executive regulations of President Trump meets diversity, justice and inclusion initiatives.

This type of examination, along with other actions of the administration of previously freezing grants that determine the communication of federal authorities, has completed databases on the health of women, HIV and youth behavior and have been flush-up to many of the DEI-related terms to many scientists Many scientists- an extreme step to take more control over the type of science that are financed and possibly who does this. If this continues, it could be a great departure from the financial financing of science.

“This is completely unprecedented, it has never happened that way,” says Neal Lane, who acted as director of the NSF from 1993 to 1998. “NSF has a mandate to take care of the workforce and ensure science,” he says. By organizing Dei: “You kill American science.”

Since the 1990s, the congress has prescribed that NSF is rejecting how its grants increase the participation of women and minorities in science in addition to the intellectual advantages of the proposal. Now the Trump government essentially says that they cannot follow this law.

“President Trump was elected president, but when he was elected president, the laws of the United States were not lifted and replaced by everything he wants to do” for science, space and technology. “These are cross -party efforts to ensure that we lack non -intelligent people in the science company in the United States.”

However, some say that taking into account the diversity in the creation of scholarships leads to a worse science. Last October, Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in a report that “NSF had assigned over thousands of research projects of over $ 2.05 billion that promoted neo-marxist perspectives or DEI principles” and struck before that it undermines “objective difficulty sciences”.

“Intellectual diversity is welcome,” says Jonathan Butcher, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “However, the justification of an idea based on the description of the scholarship is far more important than finding out where the people involved literally come from racist background or country of origin.”

Change of way of how science is financed

The presidents have the authority to determine priorities in research financing and have used this power. The bidges administration pushed, for example, according to climate and cancer research, and the administration of George W. Bush prioritized energy research and physical sciences. The congress distributes money to these priorities, and then the agencies prepare the finer details.

“Since the Second World War, science has been organized in terms of this idea of ​​the peer review that scientists understand what good science is and make decisions about what we should finance” Michigan.

At NSF, this means that program officers – often scientists who work in other institutions that come to NSF for temporary parts – manage a review process of proposals with inputs of a number of scientists. The law stipulates that NSF enable both the intellectual merit of a proposal as well as the “broader effects” of research, which means how the research of society benefits.

An essential part of these potential advantages is for decades of how grants will increase the participation of women and underrepresented groups in science. Since 1997, the Congress NSF has to expressly consider these factors in its grants. According to Suzanne Barbour, dean of the Duke University Graduate School and chairman of the NSF committee for equal opportunities in science and engineering, the taxpayer ultimately benefits.

“There is a great up -and -coming literature that indicates that teams have the largest series of voices, for different backgrounds, different types of experiences, voices that may have addressed problems from slightly different perspectives,” she says. “You are more creative, you are more successful and … Ultimately, the kind of teams that make the biggest discoveries are.”

Trump’s executive commands are exactly against this mission. The agency is currently checking grants for DEI-related terms using a list from the Senator Cruz 2024 report with the title “How the NSF sources of the NPR have politicized from the NSF from Biden-Harris NSF.

It is unclear what will happen with marked grants. NSF has resumed financing existing awards after freezing at the end of January and says that “you cannot take any measures in order to delay or stop the payment for active awards based on the actual or potential non -compliance with executive orders”. The NSF sources indicate NPR that about 20% of the grants were originally marked and this number could be further obtained.

When checking grants for the content of the content and the temporary break of payments, the agency seems to prioritize the execution regulations before its congress mandate, a practice that contradicts internal guidelines that the law has priority over executive commands if there is a conflict.

The efforts of the Trump government to practice more control over science at NSF go beyond Dei. On Tuesday, the employees were informed about the plans to reduce the participation of the agency by 25% to 50% in the next two months, according to the NPR sources. The employees were also informed that President Trump’s first budget application could reduce the budget of the agency of 9 billion US dollars to 3 billion US dollars, which was first reported by Arstechnica and confirmed by NPR, although the actual reduction that was negotiated by the congress.

“This administration not only seems to set priorities, but to enforce ideological conformity in a way if your grant studies something that does not match a certain view of the world, it is simply not financed,” says Berman. “I think to take this away has the potential to undermine the entire scientific company.”

Worries about America’s competitive advantage

If the Trump government continues to target diversity initiatives in science and significantly reduces financing, American science will look fundamentally different, says Berman.

Whole academic fields could take without federal money, especially if Dei is largely defined. “This cuts all economy, psychology, sociology in all of these areas. In all of these areas there are entire discipline that may no longer be able to continue,” says Berman.

The movements also triggered a culture of fear among many scientists. “This examination will make research less collaborative, less competitive and less innovative,” says Diana Macias, ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley, which is financed by an NSF scholarship. Bringing more people into science is “not only from widening from widening, but also to develop strict questions that help us to remain really competitive.”

Only about a quarter of the NSF subsidies gain funds, and that is after a strict application process. The idea that a forgiven scholarship can be canceled or that suggestions are not financed for political reasons makes many scientists uncomfortable and could ultimately lead some to stop or move outside the USA

“I train doctoral students and students who want to pursue scientific careers,” says Saxbe. “It is difficult for me to think about how I can encourage them if it looks like the work we do is so susceptible to partisan attacks.”

Federal funding supports these trainees, many of whom ultimately go to the private sector. According to a recently carried out statement by Computing Research Association, the NSF finances almost 80% of fundamental computer research at universities.

A reduced financing could ultimately lead to a smaller qualified workforce in order to work on important topics in terms of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and much more. Despite the existence of the close allies of the President, including Elon Musk, the United States lacks sufficient local talents to meet the demand for the technology industry for computer science experts such as software engineers and programmers.

“The private sector makes a lot of very important, primarily applied research and development. But they really don’t finance the same kind of research in which they really explore the border,” says Lane, the former NSF director.

“You cannot justify your shareholders who do the most things the National Science Foundation does. If you take away the support of the federal government for science, science in the USA is dead. Nothing can replace it.”