The Slow Dismantling of American Science (and What We Can Do about It)

This post was initially featured on Can We Still Govern?, with edits and updates, republished here with permission.

At a recent conference, Bosnian politician Sabina Ćudić discussed a challenge she encounters that resonates with scientists as well. She remarked, “I think [many professionals] are… somewhat embarrassed that they’re in politics. And there is this kind of distance: I could be somewhere else, doing something smarter, I could be paid better. There is almost a resentment towards politics.”

This sentiment is often seen in the scientific community too. Politics is sometimes viewed by scientists as a task for others or something best avoided. However, politics is central to the functioning of our society and influences everyone’s life.

Those observing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have noted the significant impact of the Trump administration’s decisions on foundational science and the broader societal implications of changes to scientific agencies.

From day one, NIH faced challenges

On January 21, 2025, the day following Inauguration Day, the National Institutes of Health was prohibited by the White House from issuing notices in the Federal Register. This seemingly minor change had sweeping consequences, preventing new grants from being issued by halting the scheduling of peer review panels.

This was part of a broader strategy to slow NIH funding, as detailed in another piece I wrote in April 2025. The White House aimed to cut the NIH budget using rescission, bypassing Congressional appropriations. Additional measures hindering the grant process included bans on certain words, mass layoffs, new paperwork requirements, and upfront funding mandates. In July, led by Russell Vought from Project 2025, the OMB issued a memo halting new NIH grants. Vought then refused to deny plans to include NIH funds in a future rescission package, seemingly affirming the intention to reduce the NIH budget.

Ultimately, the rescission effort was unsuccessful. A bipartisan group of Senators urged the White House to allow the NIH to utilize its full budget, and OMB relented. This demonstrates the influence of science on public opinion and the effectiveness of political pressure. While Congress has struggled to counter the Trump administration on various issues, it has occasionally united across party lines to defend science, especially regarding the NIH and biomedical research.

Scientific priorities should be set by Congress, not the President

The Federal Register ban signals a concerning trend. For 80 years, the NIH functioned independently of presidential control, with Congress establishing major agency priorities. As described by NIH scholar Natalie Aviles, the support for biomedical science was managed by non-partisan civil servants collaborating with external scientists.

For instance, Richard Nixon’s early 1970s War on Cancer was announced in a State of the Union address and passed into law with Congressional collaboration. Similarly, Barack Obama’s BRAIN Initiative at NIH was introduced in a State of the Union address and then enacted by Congress. While presidents can express their views, a long-term research agenda is best driven by broad bipartisan support and legal backing.

Currently, however, NIH operations and priorities are increasingly dictated by the president and the White House. For example, the Trump administration mandated that grant awards require approval from presidential appointees. Additional review steps by the White House or HHS have been introduced across the agency, from contract reviews to employee term renewals, travel approvals, and even routine disbursement of funds to grantees, a process traditionally managed by civil servants without presidential oversight. Before 2025, only two NIH positions were political appointees: the NIH and National Cancer Institute directors, both esteemed scientists.

The scientific community plays a crucial advisory role at NIH. External scientists participate in rotating positions on committees, such as peer review panels and councils, significantly influencing NIH’s direction. This is essential because conducting high-level science, such as finding cures for cancer or dementia, is challenging. Scientists are best positioned to identify innovative projects for funding and design impactful programs. America possesses this scientific talent, which has been instrumental in managing NIH.

The NIH’s governance model has been highly effective. Managed by civil servants and informed by practicing scientists, it has fostered eight decades of technological innovation, creating a “golden goose.” However, this is now at risk, as scientific decision-making is increasingly influenced by presidential politics.

NIH needs to restore its independence in scientific decision-making

The shift in NIH governance, from Congress and statutory law setting priorities to presidential control, is detrimental to US science.

Scientific projects often require years of planning, hiring, equipment procurement, and experimentation. Talent development is also time-consuming. Scientists plan their careers years in advance, deciding whether to pursue PhDs and academic positions. Under the new presidential governance model, science priorities may shift with each new president, creating instability that could undermine the scientific industry.

Restoring the NIH’s successful governance model, where Congress sets priorities, the agency executes them, and presidential appointees remain uninvolved, is essential. This approach is more democratic, as Congress represents public priorities, with the US scientific community serving as advisors.

While reforms can occur within this framework, maintaining the NIH’s scientific independence is crucial for the success of US science.

The recent NIH budget bill offers limited relief

For fiscal year 2026, Congress slightly increased the NIH’s budget in nominal terms. While this is positive news compared to the President’s proposed cuts, there are aspects of the budget bill that are also encouraging, such as avoiding reductions in research facilities and support (indirect costs).

Nevertheless, concerns remain. The bill does little to curb the presidential changes damaging the NIH. The new NIH budget report contains non-binding language to address some of the Trump administration’s worst political actions. However, the Project 2025 White House has shown a tendency to push the boundaries of legal language—and sometimes cross into outright illegality. They may simply ignore the report language. Indeed, it has been reported that the White House is ignoring instructions for the NIH to use the traditional institute director search committee process, which includes external expert advisors.

One of the few legal provisions to restrain Trump, the multi-year funding provision, allows funding at last year’s level, which saw success rates drop by 50%, a severe setback for many labs. Reports indicate that this was important to the White House, suggesting further intervention within the NIH is planned.

Additionally, even the rejection of budget cuts could be a political maneuver: a way for some Republicans to seem supportive of biomedical research while allowing Vought and Trump to undermine the agency from within through presidential control. Vigilance is necessary this year, and we must strongly oppose the increasing politicization of science agencies.

Why have scientists been hesitant to act?

Two longstanding norms have hindered scientists’ responses during the Trump era.

First, there is a belief that scientists should not engage in politics. The scientific community has long adhered to a “social contract for science,” focusing on knowledge production while remaining relatively apolitical. This approach was based on the idea that science’s credibility and public trust depended on its perceived objectivity and separation from partisan issues. This concept can be traced back to Vannevar Bush’s vision for the US science ecosystem, which shaped the structure of American science post-World War II.

However, remaining apolitical is no longer viable, through no fault of scientists.

Despite claims from the right that scientists have politicized science, the opposite is true. Like climate change and asbestos before it, powerful interests found biomedical science at odds with their agenda during COVID and employed the “Merchants of Doubt” tactic: elevating scientists who criticized biomedical science and the NIH. Figures like Scott Atlas and Jay Bhattacharya were given prominent platforms and awards from billionaire-backed think tanks.

It was primarily billionaires, through the merchants of doubt they promoted, who “politicized” science and the NIH.

Biomedical scientists should have learned from the climate science attacks. But given the current situation, ignoring power and politics is not an option—doing so will only lead to the decline of US science. We must find ways to defend science. When experts disengage from politics, it allows the wealthy to reshape society according to their interests.

The second norm is that biomedical scientists and the NIH should not engage with the public. This is tied to the idea that political advocacy should occur only in Congress, if at all. Mary Lasker, a longtime advocate for the NIH and biomedical research, epitomized this elite-to-elite advocacy model. Lasker “built a powerful lobby that won large research appropriations” through direct relationships with key Congressional members.

This advocacy model, focused on Congress, must change. Scientists need to communicate with the public about the stakes—not just about their research, but about the value of publicly-funded science and its connection to politics.

NIH’s low public profile is partly due to Congress’s desire to limit agency public relations efforts. However, scientists should encourage institutions to highlight the government’s role. I attended an event by a major NIH grant recipient, known to have received significant NIH funding, which included a professional PR presentation celebrating scientific achievements. Yet NIH was not mentioned once.

Many people I speak with recognize outstanding university research in biology but associate it with the university, not realizing it’s funded by the NIH and public money. We can change that by explaining the government’s importance to science and disease cures.

Billionaires cannot replace public science funding

As the NIH and US science have faced setbacks, some have turned to billionaire philanthropy to fill the void. However, relying on this funding is risky. NIH funding is a democratic way to support science. Public agency funding ensures accountability through Congress and distributes funds to diverse researchers.

Competing for NIH funds rewards great ideas. While the peer review system isn’t perfect, it effectively allocates basic research funding. The best grant writer might not be the most charismatic person at a party, but they may have the best ideas. We don’t want funding models that favor flashy sales pitches; we need a stable system supporting a broad range of scientists with diverse ideas. Like all public goods, sustained, robust science requires government investment for long-term societal benefit.

Democratic public funding systems have built a strong scientific research infrastructure in the US. Shifting to a model where a few wealthy individuals dictate scientific priorities is a recipe for disaster.

We must unite to protect science

As with past attacks on science, scientists must confront the challenge, not retreat. A fight is necessary. Institutions need strengthening. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the American Medical Association’s Department of Investigation published information to protect the public from health fraud and quackery. Similar initiatives to identify pseudoscience can emerge from scientific and medical groups today: scientists and doctors must continue to organize and advocate for the public good.

We also need to support journalism that stands firmly for public health. Media and social groups like The Evidence Collective are doing vital work reaching the public, but they face challenges finding sustainable business models.

The decline of US journalism over the past 25 years has contributed to the erosion of social trust and confidence in science. We urgently need to develop ways to bolster and sustain genuine journalism that champions science and evidence. There has been progress, but Trump administration efforts to defund public media have exacerbated the situation. Historically, American journalism outlets have been funded by political parties, unions, and even public dollars. Social media alters the landscape, but our fundamental needs for trust and truth remain. Scientists must join efforts to improve news and information.

While many existing institutions have done little to resist, hope remains. At NIH, a group of federal workers released the Bethesda Declaration, sharing their concerns about the agency’s situation. Recently, several brain research groups, including the American College of Psychopharmacology and the American Academy of Neurology, issued strong statements supporting the Trump administration’s dismissal of NINDS Director Walter Koroshetz. Stand Up For Science and Defending Public Health are leading new kinds of scientific advocacy.

Additionally, scientists are organizing individually. Groups are working to improve communication and share information about politics and policy. Much more needs to be done. Like realtors and car dealers investing time and money in politics, scientists must engage in politics—the core issues of societal functioning—until stable liberal democracy returns to the United States.

The importance of exercising free speech

Many scientists across the country express fear about speaking out. They worry about retaliation from the Trump administration or having their institutions targeted, with the grant system used to penalize them for speaking out.

This is a troubling development. One of the most important principles of the American constitutional framework is freedom of speech. The Trump administration has launched an unprecedented attack on this freedom, and it must be defended. In a democracy, individuals should be free to criticize their government and discuss important matters without fear of reprisal. It’s essential to protect scientists and universities advocating for liberal democracy and academic freedom.

Government employees are protected by the First Amendment when discussing public concerns. In the landmark 1968 case Pickering v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that a public school teacher could not be fired for writing a letter to a newspaper criticizing school fund allocation.

Justice Thurgood Marshall, writing for the Court, emphasized that “the public interest in having free and unhindered debate on matters of public importance [is] the core value of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,” and that public servants’ speech is protected. Public servants are “the members of a community most likely to have informed opinions” on government operations and “accordingly, it is essential that they be able to speak out freely on such questions without fear of retaliatory dismissal.”

This means that government employees, under certain conditions, have the right to discuss public concerns, and their expertise is valuable for informing public opinion.

However, it’s not just public employees who should speak out about public concerns without fear of retaliation. Too many American citizens and institutions—law firms, university faculty, scientists, and even news outlets—are afraid to discuss the erosion of American democracy. We must find ways to unite and speak out: the more voices we raise together, the stronger we become.

How scientists and the public can act

Science and academia play a crucial role in defining credible evidence in society. This is why authoritarians target both science and academia.

Public funding has made the US the world’s leading science superpower. Principles like freedom of speech, pluralism, religious freedom, talent integration, separation of church and state, equality, and the rule of law contribute to scientific success. Scientists should not be political partisans but advocates for liberal democratic principles. If political parties align themselves based on these values, it shouldn’t prevent us from accurately describing the situation.

To harness scientists’ power, collaboration and engagement are necessary. Connect with like-minded individuals nearby, meet regularly, and discuss these issues. Take actions, starting small and growing larger. Stand up for science and democracy. If we do, we will succeed.