Crystal Hammond, John Patrick Flores, Siara Rouzer, Kassandra Fernandez, Amy Ralston, Adriana Bankston
Our results showed that the majority of respondents were PhD students and early career researchers at varying stages of training, across a range of institutions and disciplines, including different types of sciences, with the largest percentage of respondents from the life sciences. Respondents described threats to the continuity of their research and careers due to funding cuts at major federal science agencies including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), and reported concerns about long-term job prospects and broader systemic issues in academia. Many respondents also indicated that these disruptions led them to consider leaving research altogether or pursuing scientific careers outside the U.S. Reported concerns spanned the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral researcher levels. While universities provided some resources of support, respondents emphasized the need for Congress to protect, stabilize, and restore science funding.
INTRODUCTION: Scientific research drives national progress and innovation, but abrupt federal funding disruptions can destabilize scientific training at critical career stages and push talented researchers out of the workforce. Actions by the Trump administration in early 2025 sent shockwaves across academic research in the United States (U.S.). Federal science budgets were significantly reduced, hundreds of research grants were abruptly frozen or terminated, and politically appointed agency leaders overrode peer-reviewed funding decisions.
METHODS: We conducted pilot, rapid-response surveys to capture quotes, stories, and quantitative data in order to understand how these seismic policy shifts impacted early career researchers at American universities.
RESULTS: Our results showed that the majority of respondents were PhD students and early career researchers at varying stages of training, across a range of institutions and disciplines, including different types of sciences, with the largest percentage of respondents from the life sciences. Respondents described threats to the continuity of their research and careers due to funding cuts at major federal science agencies including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), and reported concerns about long-term job prospects and broader systemic issues in academia. Many respondents also indicated that these disruptions led them to consider leaving research altogether or pursuing scientific careers outside the U.S. Reported concerns spanned the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral researcher levels. While universities provided some resources of support, respondents emphasized the need for Congress to protect, stabilize, and restore science funding.
DISCUSSION: Robust and sustained funding support for early career researchers is imperative for developing a strong science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workforce and maintaining American leadership in research and innovation. Overall, this pilot study provides early evidence that reductions in federal science funding may disrupt training pathways, erode confidence in research careers, and contribute to lasting losses from the future research workforce in the United States.